4 ms·

It's going to take a lot of marketing people to convince people to pay for something they can now get for free via PostgreSQL.

by gfodor 12y ago

apetresc 12y ago
If that were true, there would be an order of magnitude fewer commercial database systems on the market.
- x1024 12y ago
  It's true, and soon there won't be.
  - hnriot 12y ago
    an opinion that has been touted since the 90's. still just as wrong.
  - hobs 12y ago
    Well, I might be downvoted to hell like the other poster, but from where I sit thats a possibility far out into the future. I think you are thinking there will be an objective reckoning of features/performance/reliability and somehow since OSS wins all of those they will choose it, and as far as I am concerned, thats not actually why they choose their database in the first place. A million b2b apps are developed on sql server because visual studio/microsoft makes that easy for their .net stack, and oracle sells to executives or other manager types and gets shoehorned into projects or set as a requirement before smart people get involved ALL THE TIME. A lot of it still comes down to enterprise pricing, support, integration, and name recognition.
    - davidgerard 12y ago
      This is true. Also, vendorware that's written to Oracle. However, I am thankful my own bosses can count, and went "WHAT" at the last Oracle bill. So we're actively seeking to move our own stuff from 'Orrible to PG, and to get rid of the vendorware depending on Oracle. We just got AppDynamics in (ridiculously versatile and useful monitoring). Speaking to the AD sales engineer, he said a lot of their Oracle-using customers are eyeing up PG similarly.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
tracker1 12y ago
PostgreSQL does not have in the box master-slave replication with automatic failover and promotion. This is probably one of the biggest issues in where I would choose MongoDB over PostgreSQL, sharding is another. I like PostgreSQL, and plv8 looks incredibly cool... when replication and promotion are in the box (not needing enterprise or other complex addons), It'd be my first choice for most situations. (edited comment to make it less snarky)
- gfodor 12y ago
  psql has read only streaming slave replication with a hot standby failover, in the box.
  - mnutt 12y ago
    Sure, but the base_backup process is painful enough to make it non-trivial. It's not like you can just bring up a new postgres instance, point it at an existing primary and say "catch up and start replicating". Replication has certainly gotten much better in the past few years, though.
  - eknkc 12y ago
    Yeah.. which takes 25 people and 45 days to set up /s Mongodb literally has a 1-line command to add a replica set member and it works. This is still a huge advantage.
    - gfodor 12y ago
      That's bs. With wal-e it took a few hours tops to set up a basic master-slave system from scratch if you didn't know what you're doing. I'd have to imagine it's easier now. With proper automation adding a replica should be as simple as booting a machine and running a script or two. I don't care either way I just use RDS and don't worry about it. (You can add replicas in one click with RDS.)
      - threeseed 12y ago
        I can't tell from the documentation whether wal-e supports non-cloud based synchronisation (https://github.com/wal-e/wal-e https://github.com/wal-e/wal-e). There's no example listed there. And if you think that is as simple as MongoDB's replica sets then frankly you are crazy.

It's going to take a lot of marketing people to convince people to pay for something they can now get for free via PostgreSQL.

by gfodor 12y ago

It's going to take a lot of marketing people to convince people to pay for something they can now get for free via PostgreSQL.

apetresc 12y ago

If that were true, there would be an order of magnitude fewer commercial database systems on the market.

x1024 12y ago
It's true, and soon there won't be.
- hnriot 12y ago
  an opinion that has been touted since the 90's. still just as wrong.
- hobs 12y ago
  Well, I might be downvoted to hell like the other poster, but from where I sit thats a possibility far out into the future. I think you are thinking there will be an objective reckoning of features/performance/reliability and somehow since OSS wins all of those they will choose it, and as far as I am concerned, thats not actually why they choose their database in the first place. A million b2b apps are developed on sql server because visual studio/microsoft makes that easy for their .net stack, and oracle sells to executives or other manager types and gets shoehorned into projects or set as a requirement before smart people get involved ALL THE TIME. A lot of it still comes down to enterprise pricing, support, integration, and name recognition.
  - davidgerard 12y ago
    This is true. Also, vendorware that's written to Oracle. However, I am thankful my own bosses can count, and went "WHAT" at the last Oracle bill. So we're actively seeking to move our own stuff from 'Orrible to PG, and to get rid of the vendorware depending on Oracle. We just got AppDynamics in (ridiculously versatile and useful monitoring). Speaking to the AD sales engineer, he said a lot of their Oracle-using customers are eyeing up PG similarly.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]

tracker1 12y ago

PostgreSQL does not have in the box master-slave replication with automatic failover and promotion. This is probably one of the biggest issues in where I would choose MongoDB over PostgreSQL, sharding is another. I like PostgreSQL, and plv8 looks incredibly cool... when replication and promotion are in the box (not needing enterprise or other complex addons), It'd be my first choice for most situations. (edited comment to make it less snarky)

gfodor 12y ago
psql has read only streaming slave replication with a hot standby failover, in the box.
- mnutt 12y ago
  Sure, but the base_backup process is painful enough to make it non-trivial. It's not like you can just bring up a new postgres instance, point it at an existing primary and say "catch up and start replicating". Replication has certainly gotten much better in the past few years, though.
- eknkc 12y ago
  Yeah.. which takes 25 people and 45 days to set up /s Mongodb literally has a 1-line command to add a replica set member and it works. This is still a huge advantage.
  - gfodor 12y ago
    That's bs. With wal-e it took a few hours tops to set up a basic master-slave system from scratch if you didn't know what you're doing. I'd have to imagine it's easier now. With proper automation adding a replica should be as simple as booting a machine and running a script or two. I don't care either way I just use RDS and don't worry about it. (You can add replicas in one click with RDS.)
    - threeseed 12y ago
      I can't tell from the documentation whether wal-e supports non-cloud based synchronisation (https://github.com/wal-e/wal-e https://github.com/wal-e/wal-e). There's no example listed there. And if you think that is as simple as MongoDB's replica sets then frankly you are crazy.