Sun Eyes PostgreSQL
Da Massive writes "Sun is looking seriously into the database market - namely PostgreSQL. It says Oracle and IBM and even Microsoft licensing fees are way too expensive for the average punter.
This from John Loiacono, executive vice president of software: "We're not going to OEM Microsoft but we are looking at PostgreSQL right now," he said, adding that over time the database will become integrated into the operating system."
> Someone I know is working with an MS SQL Server database that's too slow to be usable
Not true, sql server is a fine database. Its problems have more to do with being excessively gui-driven, expensive compared to OS dbms, and owned by microsoft than anything about the speed.
> and I'm wondering whether I should suggest they go with PostgreSQL instead
not having benchmarked them, i would guess that sql server would be faster on the same hardware.
> Do you still need to VACUUM your databases?
I think an automated vaccuum has been created. But it was never a real issue in my opinion anyway - basically the existance of vacuum enables postgresql to speed deletions and updates - since some table maintenance can be performed asynchronously. So, cron (or task schedule) the thing to run nightly and you're fine.
> Has MySQL grown up yet (i.e. implemented the features it has been missing, compared to standard SQL)?
Not yet, but it's getting there. 5.0 should be a big improvement, but it still has a long way to go - not necessarily implementing the essential feature set, but now making those implementations robust.
> How does Oracle's performance compare to the rest?
Depends on what you need to do: have a small database, or a medium-sized database that's purely transactional? The open source databases can do the job. But if you've got a large database, or want to do some analytics (like show simple trends of data) then oracle/db2/informix are your friend. These commercial databases can easily be 40x the speed of postgresql or mysql on the same hardware for analytical queries.