Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Open Source Databases "50% Cheaper"

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the when-forrester-speaks dept.

pete314 writes, "Open source databases can cut the total cost of ownership of a database by up to 60% compared to the cost of running proprietary databases from Oracle, Microsoft or IBM. According to data collected by Forrester Research, the savings average about 50%. Open source databases however still struggle to reach mission-critical enterprise applications because enterprises perceive them to be less secure and stable."

9 of 276 comments (clear)

  1. SQL Server = Almost Free by blaster151 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I just don't get it. TCO and tool support are tightly linked. Most open source database products, including MySQL, seem to require quite a bit of digging and cobbling together to set up and maintain. Microsoft SQL Server has fantastic tool support, no command line experimentation required. An experienced DBA can set up a new installation in a couple of minutes. And there's even a free Express Edition available for entry-level dabbling. The cost of a database license is pretty minimal over the long haul (referring to SQL Server, not the abominable Oracle). The real cost is in the time spent compensating for whatever your database platform's tool support shortcomings are. I love Microsoft SQL Server for this reason: I rarely have to reinvent anything.

    1. Re:SQL Server = Almost Free by blaster151 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, we are running Oracle--we're a software shop and we have to support both MS-SQL and Oracle installations. Oracle just sucks, in the opinions of myself and my colleagues. Sucks in terms of the amount of workarounds to do things that MS-SQL just does automatically. I'm not afraid of command-line work, but I am afraid of wasting time. That spells death for our company and threatens what we're trying to accomplish. After years of MS-SQL use, and about one year or so of trying to mirror the same tasks on Oracle, I've come to hate the product . . .

    2. Re:SQL Server = Almost Free by Nkwe · · Score: 2, Informative
      The lack of command-line features meant that many operational activities that could be automated required a dba to manually do the job via the gui.

      Um what do you mean about the lack of command-line features? SQL Server has only one interface and that interface is SQL text sent to it from a client. The only thing that all the GUI tools do is write SQL statements for you and send them to the SQL engine. Anything that the GUI tools can do, you can do as well from the command line (ISQL / OSQL / Query Analyzer / Any software you write that can issue SQL requests.)

      In fact part of the very definition of a relational database requires that all communication with that server is via the standard query interface and that there are no special "tools" that directly access the underlying data store and bypass they query engine.

    3. Re:SQL Server = Almost Free by Itninja · · Score: 2, Informative
      I'm sorry to say it -- it may be slower, but every time I want to create a database I'm going to be wanting to right click on something and select the 'create database' or 'attach database' option... not try to remember if the command is 'create database [databasename] [physcial file] [log file]' or 'create database name=[databasename] file=[physical file] log=[logfile] set recovery=full'
      Let me introduce you to a friend of mine: phpmyadmin (cost: $0)
      Then you even be sitting on your tractor out in the cornfield and still use your laptop to create and administer the db. And if you don't like the few extra seconds it take for the screen to refresh, use phpflashmyadmin (cost:$ 0)....
      --
      I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
    4. Re:SQL Server = Almost Free by kpharmer · · Score: 3, Informative

      > Which version are you using?

      SQL Server 7 & 2000

      > SQL Server 2005 is MUCH cheaper than $80k for a 4 way server,

      No, that depends on which version you need to use: http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/default.mspx

      So, if you've got an internet-accessible search engine running sql server (wasn't my decision) then you can easily blow over $80k to license a four-way server. In fact the original estimates we got were over $100k.

  2. Re:This just in! by newt0311 · · Score: 2, Informative
    "I miss summary management (materialized views, dimensions, query rewrite), various ETL features, streams, data guard, updatable views, multi-table inserts, log miner, flashback, database links, packages, automatic workload repository, OEM, and the several months of my life I spent working around PostgreSQL's lack of anything comparable to these features."

    PostgreSQL has query rewrite and updatable view thanks to its rules system. the others are missing (to my knowledge).

  3. Re:phpmyadmin is great by Bloater · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'd recommend pgadmin3.

  4. Free versions from the "big guys" by davidbrit2 · · Score: 3, Informative

    If the cost difference we're talking about here is simply the licensing/upgrading cost, it's worth noting that several of the popular "mega expensive" database platforms offer free (as in $0) versions - albeit with certain functionality removed.

    Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Express Edition
    Only supports databases up to 4GB, and is lacking the built-in task scheduler, and most of the high-availability and business intelligence features, but is perfectly usable for small-to-mid-sized applications/web sites. Plus you can upgrade later to one of the fancier versions if necessary.

    Oracle 10g Express Edition
    I haven't had a chance to play with this yet, but it looks similar to SQL Server Express in terms of features and limitations.

    IBM DB2 Express-C
    I don't really know anything about this one. I just now found it in a fit of "I wonder..." The product comparison pages don't really say much about it, but they'll send it to you free on a DVD, so that's pretty neat.

    Sybase ASE Express
    Never used this one either. It seems to be only for Linux.

    Though honestly, from what I've seen of Postgre, I'd almost think that one would be worth looking into more so than these for small systems. One of these days I'll get around to experimenting with it. The advantage with the Express Editions is, however, that you don't have such a nasty learning curve if you can just jump right in with a database platform you're familiar with from at work. Why else would I do something insane like running php + MS SQL Server? :)

  5. Re:0% savings for me by Vancorps · · Score: 2, Informative

    Per Processor for the enterprise edition of SQL 2005 vs what you get with the Standard edition from Oracle which didn't require us to go per processor. With Oracle we could have a small number of named users and have access to all the 64bit addressing and processors we can shake a stick at. Plus we can cluster them which was the big fault for MS SQL. We caught Oracle at a good time, they came down a lot over the initial price quote they gave us.

    The only expensive part was paying for access to the metabase. Part of me thinks I could get by with just my experts-exchange account but that support is really nice when you need it.