5 ms·

As far as I can tell Oracle can store empty strings they just happen to be treated exactly like NULL. That's at least marginally better. Still, it's hard to ima

As far as I can tell Oracle can store empty strings they just happen to be treated exactly like NULL. That's at least marginally better. Still, it's hard to imagine people being willing to use Oracle nowadays.

module0000 10y ago
> it's hard to imagine people being willing to use Oracle nowadays. Only when it's the lesser of the super-evils you have to pick from. I'd pick Oracle over Progress(OpenEdge), but not much else :)
spullara 10y ago
This rears its head when you want to make a string column nullable. If you do that, you can't store empty strings in it. Really broken IMHO.
mikeash 10y ago
Does that mean that two empty strings won't compare equal to each other?
pjmlp 10y ago
> Still, it's hard to imagine people being willing to use Oracle nowadays. I use Oracle every day, because that is one of the options for our customers rely on to run their critical Fortune 500 infrastructure. The other being SQL Server.
kpil 10y ago
Why? Because you think sql is not good or because you think there are better relational databases? I'd say that Oracle delivers quite much value for your money for many applications. I have worked with all other relevant relational databases and also with a few nosql databases, in distributed systems and monoliths. It's hard to make a recommendation that can be applied generically. The best answer is "It depends, and it's complicated" One thing is sure. Nosql is not the future (quite the opposite) although sometimes -in rather special circumstances- the right solution. Graph databases are perhaps more interesting, and perhaps event sourcing, but the promises are way larger than the deliveries. Edit. I forgot the obvious reason. You try to stay clear of the Dark Side.
- tokenizerrr 10y ago
  Know any graph databases that you like? I recently tried arangodb and it consumes a crazy amount of memory for even a relatively small dataset (several million ~20 character strings)
  - vidarh 10y ago
    Try Postgres. I'm serious. For a dataset that should easily fit in memory, doing graph queries CTE's in Postgres can work very well.
- BinaryIdiot 10y ago
  It's mostly because of the money. Relational is still a great type of database and I'm sure Oracle is great. But I haven't worked with many companies that could afford Oracle very easily if at all. I also wouldn't make a generic database recommendation :)
  - rconti 10y ago
    Not necessarily a choice, but everywhere I've ever worked used Oracle. Including my last 2 <500-person Valley-based tech companies I've been employed at used it. For all its drawbacks (and I'm not a DBA or developer) at least I don't have to participate in HN threads where people discuss the 10 buzzwordy-DB-but-not-a-DB trends-of-the-week to migrate your data to.. which will all be forgotten next week :)
recursive 10y ago
An empty string has a length. That length is zero. NULL does not have a length.
- Retra 10y ago
  The length of a string shouldn't matter to anybody.
  - sidlls 10y ago
    Really? I can think of at least a couple of good reasons it matters (i/o related).
    - Retra 10y ago
      What matters is the amount of space it takes up. What matters is the content of the string in the context of parsing it and displaying it. And in all of these scenarios -- the only relevant scenarios for using a string -- a null string and an empty string should almost always have identical behavior.
      - spullara 10y ago
        There is a big difference between not knowing a value and knowing the value is empty.
        Retra 10y ago
        That's really up to the context of the problem, and the specific semantics of a null value. (Which is a value, and a present one at that. If you need to account for missing data, you can do that any number of ways, with sentinel values of any kind.)
  - recursive 10y ago
    The length of your comment is 51 characters.
patrickg_zill 10y ago
Postgresql is pretty good, however Oracle still can do some crazy things, at the cost of a correspondingly insane amount (IMHO) of database admin / sysadmin overhead.

module0000 10y ago

> it's hard to imagine people being willing to use Oracle nowadays. Only when it's the lesser of the super-evils you have to pick from. I'd pick Oracle over Progress(OpenEdge), but not much else :)

spullara 10y ago

This rears its head when you want to make a string column nullable. If you do that, you can't store empty strings in it. Really broken IMHO.

mikeash 10y ago

Does that mean that two empty strings won't compare equal to each other?

pjmlp 10y ago

> Still, it's hard to imagine people being willing to use Oracle nowadays. I use Oracle every day, because that is one of the options for our customers rely on to run their critical Fortune 500 infrastructure. The other being SQL Server.

kpil 10y ago

Why? Because you think sql is not good or because you think there are better relational databases? I'd say that Oracle delivers quite much value for your money for many applications. I have worked with all other relevant relational databases and also with a few nosql databases, in distributed systems and monoliths. It's hard to make a recommendation that can be applied generically. The best answer is "It depends, and it's complicated" One thing is sure. Nosql is not the future (quite the opposite) although sometimes -in rather special circumstances- the right solution. Graph databases are perhaps more interesting, and perhaps event sourcing, but the promises are way larger than the deliveries. Edit. I forgot the obvious reason. You try to stay clear of the Dark Side.

tokenizerrr 10y ago
Know any graph databases that you like? I recently tried arangodb and it consumes a crazy amount of memory for even a relatively small dataset (several million ~20 character strings)
- vidarh 10y ago
  Try Postgres. I'm serious. For a dataset that should easily fit in memory, doing graph queries CTE's in Postgres can work very well.
BinaryIdiot 10y ago
It's mostly because of the money. Relational is still a great type of database and I'm sure Oracle is great. But I haven't worked with many companies that could afford Oracle very easily if at all. I also wouldn't make a generic database recommendation :)
- rconti 10y ago
  Not necessarily a choice, but everywhere I've ever worked used Oracle. Including my last 2 <500-person Valley-based tech companies I've been employed at used it. For all its drawbacks (and I'm not a DBA or developer) at least I don't have to participate in HN threads where people discuss the 10 buzzwordy-DB-but-not-a-DB trends-of-the-week to migrate your data to.. which will all be forgotten next week :)

recursive 10y ago

An empty string has a length. That length is zero. NULL does not have a length.

Retra 10y ago
The length of a string shouldn't matter to anybody.
- sidlls 10y ago
  Really? I can think of at least a couple of good reasons it matters (i/o related).
  - Retra 10y ago
    What matters is the amount of space it takes up. What matters is the content of the string in the context of parsing it and displaying it. And in all of these scenarios -- the only relevant scenarios for using a string -- a null string and an empty string should almost always have identical behavior.
    - spullara 10y ago
      There is a big difference between not knowing a value and knowing the value is empty.
      - Retra 10y ago
        That's really up to the context of the problem, and the specific semantics of a null value. (Which is a value, and a present one at that. If you need to account for missing data, you can do that any number of ways, with sentinel values of any kind.)
- recursive 10y ago
  The length of your comment is 51 characters.

patrickg_zill 10y ago

Postgresql is pretty good, however Oracle still can do some crazy things, at the cost of a correspondingly insane amount (IMHO) of database admin / sysadmin overhead.