I'm looking for recent performance statistics on PostgreSQL vs. Oracle
vs. Microsoft SQL Server. Recently someone has been trying to convince my
client to switch from SyBASE to Microsoft SQL Server (they originally wanted
to go with Oracle but have since fallen in love with Microsoft). All this
time I've been recommending PostgreSQL for cost and stability (my own testing
has shown it to be better at handling abnormal shutdowns and using fewer
system resources) in addition to true cross-platform compatibility.

If I can show my client some statistics that PostgreSQL outperforms
these (I'm more concerned about it beating Oracle because I know that
Microsoft's stuff is always slower, but I need the information anyway to
protect my client from falling victim to a 'sales job'), then PostgreSQL will
be the solution of choice as the client has always believed that they need a
high-performance solution.

I've already convinced them on the usual price, cross-platform
compatibility, open source, long history, etc. points, and I've been assured
that if the performance is the same or better than Oracle's and Microsoft's
solutions that PostgreSQL is what they'll choose.

Thanks in advance.

From:	Tom Lane
Subject:	Re: [pgsql-benchmarks] PostgreSQL vs. Oracle vs. Microsoft
Date:	Sat, 08 Jan 2005 16:58:03 -0500

Randolf Richardson writes:
> I'm looking for recent performance statistics on PostgreSQL vs. Oracle
> vs. Microsoft SQL Server.

Oracle prohibits their licensees from publishing independent benchmarks,
and I think the same is true for SQL Server. So you won't find anything
unbiased.

regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match

From:	Randolf Richardson
Subject:	Re: [pgsql-benchmarks] PostgreSQL vs. Oracle vs. Microsoft
Date:	Sun, 9 Jan 2005 03:20:15 +0000 (UTC)

"tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us (Tom Lane)" wrote in pgsql.benchmarks:

> Randolf Richardson writes:
>
>> I'm looking for recent performance statistics on PostgreSQL vs. Oracle
>> vs. Microsoft SQL Server.
>
> Oracle prohibits their licensees from publishing independent benchmarks,
> and I think the same is true for SQL Server. So you won't find anything
> unbiased.

I know for a fact that my client will see this as an admission of
weakness on the part of those two vendors (I assume you mean "Microsoft SQL
Server" when you use the generic term "SQL Server," despite the fact that
PostgreSQL, Oracle, MySQL, etc., are all SQL Servers as well).

Do you happen to have links to their license agreements? I'd like to
see this for myself, because if it is then I'm going to cry a song similar to
"bloody murder" for many of my friends and colleagues once verified.

Thanks, by the way. This will pretty much be the needed "nail in the
coffin" as far as my client is concerned -- if those two organizations are
that restrictive in their license agreements, then my client will be very
concerned that they won't be able to trust the vendor in other was as well.

From:	Tom Lane
Subject:	Re: [pgsql-benchmarks] PostgreSQL vs. Oracle vs. Microsoft
Date:	Sun, 09 Jan 2005 11:25:59 -0500

Randolf Richardson writes:
> "tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us (Tom Lane)" wrote in pgsql.benchmarks:
>> Oracle prohibits their licensees from publishing independent benchmarks,
>> and I think the same is true for SQL Server. So you won't find anything
>> unbiased.

> Do you happen to have links to their license agreements?

Google turns up the Oracle license right away:

http://www.oracle.com/technology/software/htdocs/distlic.html?/technology/software/tech/windows/odpnet/utilsoft.html

About halfway down in the text box you'll find a long list of "you may not"s:

You may not:
....
disclose results of any program benchmark tests without our prior consent;
....

I didn't find the text of the SQL Server license at microsoft.com, but
I didn't spend that much time looking either.

(In the spirit of fairness: Oracle's claimed reason for this restriction
is that they don't want to be bad-mouthed by people who don't know what
a reasonable database benchmark is. I've seen enough bogus benchmarks
that I can sympathize with that. Nonetheless, writing such a thing into
your license agreement *is* an admission of weakness. If they had
confidence in their product they could let the free market figure out
which benchmarks mean something.)

regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

From:	Tom Lane
Subject:	Re: [pgsql-benchmarks] PostgreSQL vs. Oracle vs. Microsoft
Date:	Sun, 09 Jan 2005 11:30:54 -0500

I wrote:
> Google turns up the Oracle license right away:
> http://www.oracle.com/technology/software/htdocs/distlic.html?/technology/software/tech/windows/odpnet/utilsoft.html

Turns out this shorter link works just as well:

http://www.oracle.com/technology/software/htdocs/distlic.html

regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

From:	Randolf Richardson
Subject:	Re: [pgsql-benchmarks] PostgreSQL vs. Oracle vs. Microsoft
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:43:05 +0000 (UTC)

"tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us (Tom Lane)" wrote in pgsql.benchmarks:
> I wrote:
>
>> Google turns up the Oracle license right away:
>> http://www.oracle.com/technology/software/htdocs/distlic.html?/technolog
>> y/software/tech/windows/odpnet/utilsoft.html
>
> Turns out this shorter link works just as well:
>
> http://www.oracle.com/technology/software/htdocs/distlic.html

Thank you.

From:	Steve Crawford
Subject:	Re: PostgreSQL vs. Oracle vs. Microsoft
Date:	Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:04:45 -0800

> > Oracle prohibits their licensees from publishing independent
> > benchmarks, and I think the same is true for SQL Server. So you
> > won't find anything unbiased.
>
> I know for a fact that my client will see this as an admission
> of weakness on the part of those two vendors (I assume you mean
> "Microsoft SQL Server" when you use the generic term "SQL Server,"
> despite the fact that PostgreSQL, Oracle, MySQL, etc., are all SQL
> Servers as well).
>
> Do you happen to have links to their license agreements? I'd
> like to see this for myself, because if it is then I'm going to cry
> a song similar to "bloody murder" for many of my friends and
> colleagues once verified.
>
> Thanks, by the way. This will pretty much be the needed "nail
> in the coffin" as far as my client is concerned -- if those two
> organizations are that restrictive in their license agreements

Restrictive IN their license agreements? Hell, M$ and their buddies in
the BSA don't even want you to SEE the license till after you have
purchased the software! When Ed Foster, posing as a customer, tried
to get a pre-purchase copy of a license agreement he failed.
Microsoft's policy is that to see the license you must first purchase
the product: http://www.gripe2ed.com/scoop/story/2005/1/11/1939/04481

See how your client feels about that.

Cheers,
Steve

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)

From:	Randolf Richardson
Subject:	Re: PostgreSQL vs. Oracle vs. Microsoft
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:45:02 +0000 (UTC)

"scrawford@pinpointresearch.com (Steve Crawford)" wrote in pgsql.benchmarks:

>>> Oracle prohibits their licensees from publishing independent
>>> benchmarks, and I think the same is true for SQL Server. So you
>>> won't find anything unbiased.
>>
>> I know for a fact that my client will see this as an admission
>> of weakness on the part of those two vendors (I assume you mean
>> "Microsoft SQL Server" when you use the generic term "SQL Server,"
>> despite the fact that PostgreSQL, Oracle, MySQL, etc., are all SQL
>> Servers as well).
>>
>> Do you happen to have links to their license agreements? I'd
>> like to see this for myself, because if it is then I'm going to cry
>> a song similar to "bloody murder" for many of my friends and
>> colleagues once verified.
>>
>> Thanks, by the way. This will pretty much be the needed "nail
>> in the coffin" as far as my client is concerned -- if those two
>> organizations are that restrictive in their license agreements
>
> Restrictive IN their license agreements? Hell, M$ and their buddies in
> the BSA don't even want you to SEE the license till after you have
> purchased the software! When Ed Foster, posing as a customer, tried
> to get a pre-purchase copy of a license agreement he failed.
> Microsoft's policy is that to see the license you must first purchase
> the product: http://www.gripe2ed.com/scoop/story/2005/1/11/1939/04481
>
> See how your client feels about that.

Excellent information! Although it's not a benchmark, it's exactly
what I was hoping for! =D

My customer's going to try to get a copy before-hand. He says that if
they don't let him see it then they'll be "out of the running" for sure.

From:	Simon Riggs
Subject:	Re: PostgreSQL vs. Oracle vs. Microsoft
Date:	Sun, 09 Jan 2005 22:07:25 +0000

On Sun, 2005-01-09 at 03:20 +0000, Randolf Richardson wrote:
> "tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us (Tom Lane)" wrote in pgsql.benchmarks:
>
> > Randolf Richardson writes:
> >
> >> I'm looking for recent performance statistics on PostgreSQL vs. Oracle
> >> vs. Microsoft SQL Server.
> >

Think about it. You're not the first to want this, yet none are
available. It must be because...

> > Oracle prohibits their licensees from publishing independent benchmarks,
> > and I think the same is true for SQL Server. So you won't find anything
> > unbiased.

I believe this has been so for many years with the Oracle licence. I
don't recall seeing this with Microsoft, but then I am less familiar
with the terms.

> Do you happen to have links to their license agreements? I'd like to
> see this for myself....

Easy, just pay the Ferryman...

--
Best Regards, Simon Riggs

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

From:	Michael Dean
Subject:	Re: [pgsql-benchmarks] PostgreSQL vs. Oracle vs. Microsoft
Date:	Sun, 09 Jan 2005 20:42:54 -0800

Also keep in mind that CA released Ingre (forerunner to Postgre), IBM
released the improved code from Informix, and Borland firebird. So
there are plenty of commercial grade RDBMS out there.

Randolf Richardson wrote:

> I'm looking for recent performance statistics on PostgreSQL vs. Oracle
>vs. Microsoft SQL Server. Recently someone has been trying to convince my
>client to switch from SyBASE to Microsoft SQL Server (they originally wanted
>to go with Oracle but have since fallen in love with Microsoft). All this
>time I've been recommending PostgreSQL for cost and stability (my own testing
>has shown it to be better at handling abnormal shutdowns and using fewer
>system resources) in addition to true cross-platform compatibility.
>
> If I can show my client some statistics that PostgreSQL outperforms
>these (I'm more concerned about it beating Oracle because I know that
>Microsoft's stuff is always slower, but I need the information anyway to
>protect my client from falling victim to a 'sales job'), then PostgreSQL will
>be the solution of choice as the client has always believed that they need a
>high-performance solution.
>
> I've already convinced them on the usual price, cross-platform
>compatibility, open source, long history, etc. points, and I've been assured
>that if the performance is the same or better than Oracle's and Microsoft's
>solutions that PostgreSQL is what they'll choose.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>
>

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

From:	Bruce Momjian
Subject:	Re: PostgreSQL vs. Oracle vs. Microsoft
Date:	Fri, 14 Jan 2005 10:41:08 -0500 (EST)

Michael Dean wrote:
> Also keep in mind that CA released Ingre (forerunner to Postgre), IBM
> released the improved code from Informix, and Borland firebird. So

What source code has IBM released?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

> there are plenty of commercial grade RDBMS out there.
>
> Randolf Richardson wrote:
>
> > I'm looking for recent performance statistics on PostgreSQL vs. Oracle
> >vs. Microsoft SQL Server. Recently someone has been trying to convince my
> >client to switch from SyBASE to Microsoft SQL Server (they originally wanted
> >to go with Oracle but have since fallen in love with Microsoft). All this
> >time I've been recommending PostgreSQL for cost and stability (my own testing
> >has shown it to be better at handling abnormal shutdowns and using fewer
> >system resources) in addition to true cross-platform compatibility.
> >
> > If I can show my client some statistics that PostgreSQL outperforms
> >these (I'm more concerned about it beating Oracle because I know that
> >Microsoft's stuff is always slower, but I need the information anyway to
> >protect my client from falling victim to a 'sales job'), then PostgreSQL will
> >be the solution of choice as the client has always believed that they need a
> >high-performance solution.
> >
> > I've already convinced them on the usual price, cross-platform
> >compatibility, open source, long history, etc. points, and I've been assured
> >that if the performance is the same or better than Oracle's and Microsoft's
> >solutions that PostgreSQL is what they'll choose.
> >
> > Thanks in advance.
> >
> >---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> >TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
>

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match

From:	Tom Lane
Subject:	Re: PostgreSQL vs. Oracle vs. Microsoft
Date:	Fri, 14 Jan 2005 11:03:43 -0500

Bruce Momjian writes:
> Michael Dean wrote:
>> Also keep in mind that CA released Ingre (forerunner to Postgre), IBM
>> released the improved code from Informix, and Borland firebird. So

> What source code has IBM released?

Cloudscape, a pure-Java SQL database (though I'm not sure that that's
what Michael meant).

regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

From:	Randolf Richardson
Subject:	Re: PostgreSQL vs. Oracle vs. Microsoft
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:42:34 +0000 (UTC)

"tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us (Tom Lane)" wrote in pgsql.benchmarks:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>> Michael Dean wrote:
>>
>>> Also keep in mind that CA released Ingre (forerunner to Postgre), IBM
>>> released the improved code from Informix, and Borland firebird. So
>>
>> What source code has IBM released?
>
> Cloudscape, a pure-Java SQL database (though I'm not sure that that's
> what Michael meant).

Interesting. Is it also free?

I've always thought that HSQLDB would be a good enough free 100% Java
database engine for very small stand-alone projects. Does CloudScape fit
into this realm, or would you consider it to be a higher grade?

HSQLDB - 100% Java database
http://hsqldb.sourceforge.net/