That depends: if you feel paying $47,000 per license for an Oracle database is overpriced, considering it's pretty much the only database which actually works a

That depends: if you feel paying $47,000 per license for an Oracle database is overpriced, considering it's pretty much the only database which actually works and can withstand the kind of abuse large customers dish out at it, then I guess it's overpriced. I happen to think it's a bargain and a half, and wouldn't mind paying for it in the least. I know exactly what I'd be getting, and what that baby can do. And for $47,000, it can do so much in one package that other databases better hide. The only other database which can measure up against Oracle is Vertica, which is surprise! surprise! another commercial product (at $150,000, Vertica is much more expensive, but it's also awesome). PostgreSQL comes in a distant third, and for the users of the enormous and completely exotic, there's Teradata. And with the exception of PostgreSQL, which still has long way to go with respect to synchronous multimaster replication, all these other databases cost so much that it's enough to make one's head spin. So Oracle is actually the cheapest.