Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Open-Source Babelfish for Postgres

babelfishpg.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 33 posts

Re: Open-Source Babelfish for Postgres

#21

Post by tomnipotent »

ahachete wrote: post #19
manishsharan wrote: post #9

I don't see any enterprise customer using this. MS SQL server is relatively cheap. Now if this thing can work for Oracle or IBM DB2 , then may be it will be worth the risk.

> MS SQL server is relatively cheap At $14K/core [0] for the Enterprise edition, it doesn't fit exactly on my definition of cheap. Sure, it's 1/4th of Oracle's price, but still translates to 6-7 figures for even small deployments, which again is not cheap to me. But I guess the main attractiveness for current SQL Server uses might be more on the licensing terms/compliance problems than the cost. Just trying to unders…

I can get on the phone with a sales rep and get a custom quote in a few hours, without having to read a thing. And it'll probably be at least 30-50% (or more) discounted from whatever is listed. Microsoft has operated this way for decades. It's cost has also never once come up in a budget review meeting.

Re: Open-Source Babelfish for Postgres

#22

Post by cies »

This may help PG take serious market share from MSSQL.

Also: I wonder if the shiny GUI tools that exist for MSSQL will then work from PG, and ... to what extend these tools will work with regular PG tables.

I really like DBeaver[1] (what I use myself), but I've seen stuff done by MSSQL DBAs using expensive GUI tools that have amazed me.

[1]: https://dbeaver.io/

Re: Open-Source Babelfish for Postgres

#23

Post by cies »

manishsharan wrote: post #9

I don't see any enterprise customer using this. MS SQL server is relatively cheap. Now if this thing can work for Oracle or IBM DB2 , then may be it will be worth the risk.

> I don't see any enterprise customer using this

Same was said for Lyenuks (Linux), Apache, etc.

Re: Open-Source Babelfish for Postgres

#24

Post by ThinkBeat »

It must be compiled from the provided source code if you want to run it.

The instruction for doing so is far from simple if you do not have a dev. background.

I look forward to using it. T-Sql is still the dialect I know best.

Re: Open-Source Babelfish for Postgres

#25

Post by BrentOzar »

ahachete wrote: post #19
manishsharan wrote: post #9

I don't see any enterprise customer using this. MS SQL server is relatively cheap. Now if this thing can work for Oracle or IBM DB2 , then may be it will be worth the risk.

> MS SQL server is relatively cheap At $14K/core [0] for the Enterprise edition, it doesn't fit exactly on my definition of cheap. Sure, it's 1/4th of Oracle's price, but still translates to 6-7 figures for even small deployments, which again is not cheap to me. But I guess the main attractiveness for current SQL Server uses might be more on the licensing terms/compliance problems than the cost. Just trying to unders…

> At $14K/core [0] for the Enterprise edition

Licenses are sold in 2-core packs, so it's $7,000 per core. (The link you included is the 2-core pack pricing.)

> still translates to 6-7 figures for even small deployments

The majority of deployments are 8 cores or less [0], so even if they were Enterprise - which they're not - they're 5 figures. Not saying it's cheap, but it's an order of magnitude less expensive than what you're suggesting.

[0]: https://www.brentozar.com/archive/2020/03/sql-constantcare-p...

Re: Open-Source Babelfish for Postgres

#26

Post by bigbizisverywyz »

tomnipotent wrote: post #21
ahachete wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> MS SQL server is relatively cheap At $14K/core [0] for the Enterprise edition, it doesn't fit exactly on my definition of cheap. Sure, it's 1/4th of Oracle's price, but still translates to 6-7 figures for even small deployments, which again is not cheap to me. But I guess the main attractiveness for current SQL Server uses might be more on the licensing terms/compliance problems than the cost. Just trying to unders…

I can get on the phone with a sales rep and get a custom quote in a few hours, without having to read a thing. And it'll probably be at least 30-50% (or more) discounted from whatever is listed. Microsoft has operated this way for decades. It's cost has also never once come up in a budget review meeting.

That's largely because alternatives like Postgres exist. If they didn't then I'm pretty sure the the conversation would be more along the lines of "take it or leave it."

People shouldn't underestimate the commoditization of databases that has occurred since MySQL and Postgres became acceptable alternatives.

Re: Open-Source Babelfish for Postgres

#27

Post by tomnipotent »

bigbizisverywyz wrote: post #26
tomnipotent wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can get on the phone with a sales rep and get a custom quote in a few hours, without having to read a thing. And it'll probably be at least 30-50% (or more) discounted from whatever is listed. Microsoft has operated this way for decades. It's cost has also never once come up in a budget review meeting.

That's largely because alternatives like Postgres exist. If they didn't then I'm pretty sure the the conversation would be more along the lines of "take it or leave it." People shouldn't underestimate the commoditization of databases that has occurred since MySQL and Postgres became acceptable alternatives.

Has nothing at all to do with Postgres, or underestimating anything. Microsoft has a very large, robust partner network that's able get great pricing and the cost of MSSQL really hasn't changed much over the years outside multi-core updates.

Re: Open-Source Babelfish for Postgres

#28

Post by GlennS »

It's interesting, I wouldn't have guessed the SQL dialect differences to be the main reason to pick one database over another.

Other comments on this suggest it's very important to them, which is a surprise to me.

Rather, I would have bet on either the performance characteristics for your particular situation, the knowledge of your programmers (or db admins) / recruitment pool, or perhaps integrations with other software.

Still, a very useful looking tool, don't want to knock it.

Re: Open-Source Babelfish for Postgres

#29

Post by radiowave »

BrentOzar wrote: post #25
ahachete wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> MS SQL server is relatively cheap At $14K/core [0] for the Enterprise edition, it doesn't fit exactly on my definition of cheap. Sure, it's 1/4th of Oracle's price, but still translates to 6-7 figures for even small deployments, which again is not cheap to me. But I guess the main attractiveness for current SQL Server uses might be more on the licensing terms/compliance problems than the cost. Just trying to unders…

> At $14K/core [0] for the Enterprise edition Licenses are sold in 2-core packs, so it's $7,000 per core. (The link you included is the 2-core pack pricing.) > still translates to 6-7 figures for even small deployments The majority of deployments are 8 cores or less [0], so even if they were Enterprise - which they're not - they're 5 figures. Not saying it's cheap, but it's an order of magnitude less expensive than w…

However, (or unless things have changed recently) you have to license at least 4 cores. The 2-core pack only exists so you can use it in conjunction with 4-core packs to license (e.g.) 6 cores.

Re: Open-Source Babelfish for Postgres

#30

Post by nicoburns »

GlennS wrote: post #28

It's interesting, I wouldn't have guessed the SQL dialect differences to be the main reason to pick one database over another. Other comments on this suggest it's very important to them, which is a surprise to me. Rather, I would have bet on either the performance characteristics for your particular situation, the knowledge of your programmers (or db admins) / recruitment pool, or perhaps integrations with other soft…

I think this is for organisations that already have a large system using T-SQL and want to migrate it to postgres.
Post reply on HN