Relaxing the availability and reliability is definitely not an option. Also reducing the volume of data to only 30-to-90 days will not meet our requirements. Our customer's auditors, as well as the customer's themselves would leave us in droves. The current oracle database is a mission critical database for our customers. Sandy On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 10:57 PM, Paresh Yadav <yparesh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > In addition to excellent points mentioned by many posters above: > > Recently one of my client decided to move to PostgreSQL after getting > frustrated with Oracle`s licensing costs and ..... The migration is in > progress so we will know the results in few months. We had done some > back-off tests for PostgreSQL against Oracle and what I had come to the > conclusion is that for a 2 TB ODS database that will grow by about 700 GB > per year up to total of 5 TB PostgreSQL won't satisfy the performance > and manageability requirements. We decided to relax the database storage / > size requirements by storing only 30 or 90 days partial data as needed by > various application specific databases instead of a unified single massive > Oracle database. We also relaxed some of the availability and reliability > requirements because we think PostgreSQL can't meet them without complex > architecture involving clustering etc, would like to know your feedback > about our decision above. > > > - PostgreSQL documentation recommends maximum of about 100 partition > per table per instance. Beyond which you are expected to use clustering. > - No partition wise join etc. > - As someone mentioned limited support for partition which my manager > put nicely as `PostgreSQL lets you manage your own partitions!`. This is > similar to how it was done in Oracle 7.3, circa 1997. > - Extremely primitive Query optimizer > - If you are spoiled by AWR, OEM, Hints, SQL Profiles, intelligent > optimizer in Oracle, you will find PostgreSQL lacking many of those > features > > > IMHO PostgreSQL will be excellent replacement for Oracle for small low > volume / load databases. I wish to see something rise and challenge Oracle > so as to have a healthy competition in the market. > > Cheers, > Paresh > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Jared Still <jkstill@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Sandra Becker <sbecker6925@xxxxxxxxx> >> wrote: >> > "Oracle DBs are an outdated, monolithic way to handle data >> > and not at all scalable". >> > >> > >> That is pure FUD. >> >> >> Jared Still >> Certifiable Oracle DBA and Part Time Perl Evangelist >> Oracle Blog: http://jkstill.blogspot.com >> Home Page: http://jaredstill.com >> >> >> -- >> //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l >> >> >> > > > -- > Thanks > Paresh > 416-688-1003 > > -- Sandy Transzap, Inc. -- //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l