This was an interesting article. In some ways, I think I learned more about Oracle than PostgreSQL, but it's all good. My perspective is developer, rather tha

This was an interesting article. In some ways, I think I learned more about Oracle than PostgreSQL, but it's all good. My perspective is developer, rather than DBA, so it was enlightening to delve into another's specialty. I've occasionally used Postgres at home, including doing some work at home long ago for a (small batch oriented) project to be hosted on Oracle at work. Irony on that project: my crap hardware at home outperformed the server at work, due to neglect by the Oracle DBAs at work. The DBAs had to really be pushed to index several of the tables, as we had to convince them that we really did read some tables and columns many times, rather than generate "write once, read never" type data :-) In contrast, the default Postgres setup did well at this particular job running at home with my "2 cans on a string" setup: 200 MHz Athlon client & 166 Mhz P1 "server", joined by a 96 Kb serial PPP connection! (I forgot why I used 2 machines instead of 1, but computers were small back then -- my "Atom" laptop now has more computrons than those boxes) I found that MySQL was not even close (at least 10 years ago) to emulating Oracle. At least Postgres was close enough to make the effort, and the poster's comparison, worthwhile.