Hi, I was wondering if anyone know what's is the requirement for installing
Oracle database for Solaris x86?

I would need all the features except that I just need a very small initial
database.

Some of my colleaque to look into the opensource database such as MySQL
and/or PostgreSQL since they are easy to install and require virtually very
little resources as compare to MS SQL*Server, Sybase, DB2, and especially
Oracle. Is it true?

The reason is that I have a limited diskspace and memory.

Thanks

Sarah Tanembaum wrote:

http://docs.oracle.com for all installation documentation.

Makes no sense to me. Do they have a smaller footprint? Of course.
Do they have far less functionality? Of course? Can they be safely
restored from a crash? Not likely.

But I currently run Oracle Enterprise Edition 9.2.0.4 and 10g on a
500 MHz Pentium III with 512MB RAM and have no problem opening and
using JDeveloper, or Oracle Forms 6i or 9i or Oracle Reports 6i or
9i and ERwin or SQL Navigator all at the same time. I have 11.25GB
of disk and also have on the machine W2K, Microsoft Word, Excel,
PowerPoint and Front Page, DreamWeaver, Netscape, WinEdit, SideKick,
WSFTP, and a few dozen other utilities including a copy of the old
XTreePro.

Does your machine have less resources than this?

And, BTW, performance is more than adequate except when loading
JDeveloper which is a bit slow.

--
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...ad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...oa/aoa_crs.asp
damorgan@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

Sarah Tanembaum wrote:

Do they install easier? True.
Less resources? True.

Same features? No.

Make youre decision based on what you need.
Disk and RAM are relatively inexpensive compared to an enterprise RDBMS...

"Daniel Morgan" <damorgan@x.washington.edu> wrote

Hi Daniel, for now, I'm not really concern about redundancy such as
snapshot, live backup, etc, etc. What I'd like to have is a full functioning
Oracle Database with minimal resources - (128MB RAM, 2GB Disk) but has all
its features such as full SQL*92 features, Strored Procedures ...etc. Thanks

Sarah Tanembaum wrote:

The smallest 'supported' footprint for Oracle that meets your criteria is
Oracle Standard Edition (or Standard Edition ONE if your machine only
supports 1 or 2 CPU).

You can theoretically create a custom install smaller than that, but you
have to know exactly what you are doing. (And it probably won't be
supported.)

The Standard Edition {ONE] has most, if not all, of the features that
typical PostgreSQL, MySQL, MS Access and SQL Server shops are looking for.
(This is NOT a challenge for a feature battle - just a stanement of what
the developers think they want, in my experience.)

There are dozens of reasons why MySQL and PostgreSQL have a smaller
footprint. As of yet, the commercial products still have an edge in
reliability, scalability, and other capabilities.

Oracle, for example, provides intrinsic support for several additional
datatypes AND their manipulation. While PostgreSQL and MySQL support many
of the datatypes, the manipulation is in some areas still a ways off. As a
result, you end up growing the effective footprint by needing to add extra
software.

The kicker is that the additional things are preintegrated and tested with
the database, whereas many OpenSource developers end up adding or
integrating the capability manually. Some examnples, in Oracle's case:
Apache-based HTTP listener, PERL, direct interface from Apache to database
via mod_PLSQL, Java and J2EE, a command line interface to the data, message
& message queueing, email inteface, direct HTML capability, workflow, a
text/document index and search mechanism, geospatial manipulation, XML as a
data type that can be joined with tables.

(Similar statements can be made for the other products.)

The counter argument is generally "I want to pick the version levels of the
add-ons". Which is fine if you want to spend the time and effort
supporting the required combination.

(One other _major_ difference is that Oracle uses a SCHEMA in a manner
similar to other products' DATABASE. Many developers get this confused and
create many Oracle Databases when they really should have one database that
contains many schemas. That frequently results in a footprint that is MUCH
larger than necessary.)

Don't get me wrong - I do like and use Open Source. I just believe in
picking the right tool for the job, and understand WHY it's the right tool.
Many developers snub Oracle simply because they do not know what it is
capable of doing. Thus they end up reinventing the wheel - which may keep
the initial cost low but tends to increase the long term operating cost.

HTH
/Hans

Sarah Tanembaum wrote:

Not going to happen. Have you checked the price of RAM lately?
You can kick that machine up to a decent amount of RAM for the
cost of a few cups of coffee. (yes its an exaggeration but not
by much)

--
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...ad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...oa/aoa_crs.asp
damorgan@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)