its not missing from sql server, or oracle.

Geo/GIS is an area where SQL Server and Oracle have a solid lead over MySQL and PostgreSQL. Oracle especially handles GIS data extremely well.

Oracle Spatial isn't that different, compared to PostGIS. Except for license fees, of course.

Meanwhile, they both are missing the concept of spatial contexts.

Benchmarks and proof on Oracle handling GIS data better than PostGIS please.

sql server does. We benchmarked it at work.

If you are that interested do your own tests.

Good for you but I did not ask for stranger's anecdotes. Everything I find online does not support your point so I cannot take your word for it.

I'm not asking you to take my word for it, I'm suggesting you test it yourself using your typical use case.

And I have neither the time nor the resources to do that comprehensively.

For a person who is relying on benchmarks, you should know that benchmarks are only a rough indication of how well anything performs for a very specific use case.

Your reply is arrogant and ignorant, and you should feel bad about typing that.

> If you are that interested do your own tests.

Why is he not allowed to review your results or check what factors you benchmarked it on? If there's no citation, that claim does not stand.

lol

To be fair, Oracle is usually extremely good at most of the stuff it does. I've no idea about GIS specifically, but, generally, you get what you pay for.

> I've no idea about GIS specifically, but, generally, you get what you pay for.

That's a fascinating/contrary, albeit nebulous thing to say in a thread about Postgres...