Re: [cobalt-users] oracle

[Colin Smith <colin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 21 Apr 2000, Kris Dahl wrote:

> on 4/21/00 2:55 PM, Paul Schreiber at cheesefactory@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> > --- Chris Bledsoe <cbledsoe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> There is a reason that oracle is expensive and others are free.
> >> 
> >> Oracle is extremely powerful and nothing can compare. It merely
> >> comes down to purpose and need.
> > 
> > please trim quoted text when reply. argh. argh. argh.
> > 
> > oracle is very powerful, has a fabulous kernel, can handle lots of users, has
> > lots of neat high-end features, et cetera
> > 
> > however, its tools suck. sqlplus isn't half as nice as mysql's client; oracle
> > is also much more complicated to install and configure.

I've found that Oracle installs in particular are always a nightmare. It's
easier to build MySQL or PostgreSQL from source than it is to install
Oracle.

> > 
> > for most people, oracle is probably overkill.
> 
> I second his opinion... MySQL is probably your best choice for small to
> medium sized databases.  Getting up into the enterprise sized databases
> you'll want to start looking to Oracle and DB2.
> 
> MySQL is good enough for any possible database you'd be running on a Raq,
> *especially* one of the MIPS based ones.

Thirded but PostgreSQL supports transactions and synchronous writes so
though it doesn't have MySQLs speed I'd vote for it.

-- 
|Colin Smith:  Colin.Smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | Windows 2000 |
|Configuration management library for Unix/Linux | AKA | 
|http://www.yelm.freeserve.co.uk/libcfg/ | The W2K Bug |