Re: Database Application.
Re: Database Application.
- Subject: Re: Database Application.
- From: Andy Satori <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:24:48 -0400
I'm currently in the process of evaluating the larger, scalable
databases for migrating my own business off of MS SQL server.
Right now, I'm down to 3 serious contenders. Postgres, Oracle, and
OpenBase. Since I'm migrating primarily to a Linux/Mac OS X server
environment with a mixture of Windows, Linux and Mac OS X clients, I
want something that is scalable as my business grows, performs well,
and is well supported in terms of data access from virtually any
platform. While I want scalability, I don't see myself needing billion
record tables, which is the only compelling reason to goto Oracle.
The way it breaks down for my needs:
* Oracle
- Very Expensive
- Good Data access via robust JDBC support
- Difficult to manage
- Best performance
- Requires expensive hardware configurations to maintain high uptime
/ avail.
* OpenBase
- Reasonably priced (though a little expensive to get the Java Stored
Procedures)
- Outstanding DataAccess via ODBC, JDBC, and native API's
- Easy to manage
- Performance is good
- Doesn't require massive hardware investment
* Postgres
- Best price :-)
- Good data access, though not as stable across all platforms
- Difficult to manage (much like Oracle)
- Performance is on par with OpenBase
- Doesn't require massive hardware invesment, but does require a large
time investment to establish high uptime / avail
At this point, I haven't made a decision, but at the moment, I'm
leaning towards to OpenBase for my needs. Postgres is too much like
Oracle in many ways, and while I'm comfortable with sql+ and the
command line, I don't want to support and admin the DB. I shouldn't
have to. OpenBase appears to be a good compromise.
mySQL and FrontBase are both in the also ran category, but neither
suited my needs. The other player that I'm watching is IBM and DB/2.
DB/2 on the Mac platform has alot of appeal as well, though it's in the
Oracle price range.
Andy Satori
On Monday, June 16, 2003, at 11:33 AM, Jeff Harrell wrote:
On Monday, June 16, 2003, at 09:01 AM, Tony S. Wu wrote:
MySQL is good.
PostgreSQL is better. ;-)
There is a sort of low-level ongoing debate about whether MySQL is
actually a database. Until recently, it didn't support basic features
like transactions, and I believe (though I may be wrong) that that
support is still limited.
The consensus seems to be that MySQL is marginally faster, sometimes,
but that PostgreSQL is *far* more capable. The PostgreSQL folks see
themselves as competing with Oracle and Sybase, and it shows. I
personally have written many database applications with it, and it's
the bee's knees.
http://www.postgresql.org
Here's an outstanding ADC article on installing PostgreSQL:
http://developer.apple.com/internet/macosx/postgres.html
There's also a handy-dandy PostgreSQL installation package on Marc
Liyanage's site. It's not quite a double-click installation, but it's
very close.
http://www.entropy.ch/software/macosx/postgresql/
Maybe one of these days I'll write a simple prefs pane for controlling
the server. That's a neat idea. Let me file that one away somewhere.
Of course, Oracle and Sybase are available in free developer versions
for Mac OS X, and in production versions for a price.
--
email@hidden
http://homepage.mac.com/jharrell
_______________________________________________
cocoa-dev mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/cocoa-dev
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
_______________________________________________
cocoa-dev mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/cocoa-dev
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.