Slashdot Mirror
dB Choices - Oracle, DB2 or Something Else?
An Anonymous Coward asks: "I work company where I currently have to implement a new back end database architecture. It needs to be highly scalable, globally accessible, distributed, robust, fault tolerant and secure. There's a feeling amongst management that our current database, PostGres, hasn't got the grunt we need. Everyone seems to think we should go to Oracle or DB2, but I'm not yet convinced. Can anyone suggest what are the pros and cons of Oracle and DB2? Why should we go for one over the other? Is it possible to implement either of these without paying a fortune in maintenance and subscriptions? Which of these requires LESS maintenance given that we are going to be using the Linux on Intel?"
The technical advantages of Oracle over Postgress are not as significant as Larry might like to think. However, what it does have is a proven ability to perform.
I'm sure that there is no technical reason why Postgress can't handle multi-terabyte databases but I know Oracle can manage because I've seen it and because there are plenty of other customers who have too. The same goes for clustering, stored procedures, etc. If you're trying to reduce technical risk it's pragmatic to choose a solution you know will work.
Also in Oracle's favour is that it's much easier to recruit Oracle people than Postgress people. Databases are complex beasts, so it's important that you have qualified people supporting it.
I've not really used DB2, but I think that it has similar advantages over Postgres as Oracle. And finally, I am slightly biased. I don't work for Oracle but I did write the Oracle 8i on Linux Howto.
No they don't. We were only quoted 600 grand :-)
Needless to say, we stuck with a non-OPS version
of Oracle. The parallel features would be nice,
but there simply isn't the business justification
to spend that much money on them. As we grow,
perhaps we'll need it, but for us (and for most
companies, in fact), the cost is just too high
to justify parallel server.
Actually, unless you have a really good reason for doing so, stick with PostgreSQL. A really good reason, BTW, means more than just a vague management feeling that it doesn't have enough grunt. Have you done accurate performance benchmarking? Have you checked that it really is Postgres that's having a problem, and not an issue with inadequate hardware? 24x7 support could count as a "good reason", should you decide you need it. Yes, I know there are companies that support PostgreSQL now, but I don't know if they do 24x7, and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be considered sufficiently established to support a large scale implementation by the corporate world. At the end of the day, no one ever got fired for choosing Oracle, but you have to be aware of what you're letting yourself in for.
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
Both databases will do what you want them to do, but DB2 is cheaper than Oracle. If management gives you a choice between the two, and if your requirements are as you specified, then DB2 is probably your best bet.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
I'm pretty sure trial versions of both Oracle and DB2 are available for Linux. Why don't you download and install them both, dump in some dummy data, run a few queries etc. Both are supposed to scale up the wazoo so that shouldn't be a problem. Find out how the people who will have to administer it are about using it. Check out the tools that are available for both. Everyone's situation is going to be different (financial, ammount of data, type of data, volatility of data, in-house expertise, reporting requirements etc) so it'd be hard for an outsider to make a judgement call. The time you invest in reviewing them should easily pay for it's self.