7 ms·

> yet everything runs as fast or faster than it did on Oracle. Be careful with that statement, Oracle’s license disallows users of the database from making ben

> yet everything runs as fast or faster than it did on Oracle. Be careful with that statement, Oracle’s license disallows users of the database from making benchmarks or any kind of performance comparisons (another reason to move to PGSQL) EDIT: Source that refers to the ToS: https://stackoverflow.com/a/12116865 https://stackoverflow.com/a/12116865

SomeHacker44 9y ago
Sure sounds like they're an ex-user of Oracle and not a user. :)
vkjv 9y ago
If they are no longer using it, would the license still apply?
- 7265626F6F74 9y ago
  Even if they are an ex-user of Oracle products, they would have had to benchmark the software at a time the were using it or have someone who is using it benchmark it. Either way a benchmark would be made at some point while an Oracle product user, which taking kuschku's word for it, is against the license agreement.
  - mjw1007 9y ago
    Looking at the license agreement, it doesn't prohibit running benchmarks and recording their results, so if you ask me they wouldn't be breaking the agreement at the time they were bound by it. (Of course nobody in danger of getting involved in a court case with Oracle is going to be asking me.)
    - kuschku 9y ago
      Well, it does exactly that, doesn’t it? > You may not […] > - disclose results of any program benchmark tests without our prior consent.
      - mjw1007 9y ago
        The point is that performing the benchmarks and disclosing the results can happen at different times.
tschwimmer 9y ago
This is absolutely 100% insane. Imagine if CPU makers prevented you from running PassMark. Hell, imagine if car's manufacturer warranty was voided if you took it to a dynamometer. Why do we as a society allow these absurd rent seeking practices like these? What possible social good could come from preventing discussion about an enterprise software product?
- kuschku 9y ago
  > Hell, imagine if car's manufacturer warranty was voided if you took it to a dynamometer. Ferrari has the right to force you to give your car back if you do anything unauthorized with it, including any modification, or any unapproved testing. This was why Deadmau5 had to give back his Purrari (he modified the logo and theme to a nyancat theme)
  - ben-schaaf 9y ago
    This sounds like bullshit to me. If you own the car you have every right to modify it. It's your property. I can see Ferrari not selling you any new cars because you did something they don't like, but I don't see how they have e the right to force you to give your car back (which you paid for) if you modify it.
    - kuschku 9y ago
      Well, because you don’t buy the car. Ferrari owns it, you buy a license to use it. Just like with all your online services, or your software.
      - dagw 9y ago
        Ferrari owns it, you buy a license to use it. That sounds like sort of claim that should be backed up with some pretty significant evidence.
        omginternets 9y ago
bostik 9y ago
The beauty of course being that the mere existence of such a clause tells you more than enough about the performance characteristics. Now, I'm not going to discount Oracle entirely. From what I've learned from some truly hardcore DBAs, there are certain workloads and scenarios where Oracle is still unbeatable.[ß] But outside those special cases, postgres is the rational, correct choice. ß: For example, if you have insane performance requirements on a single system, I have been explained that oracle can be used with their own "fs" layer, which in turn runs directly on top of block device layer. Essentially, a bare-bones file system designed for nothing but their own DB usage.
- RJIb8RBYxzAMX9u 9y ago
  I'll play devil's advocate: it's easy to benchmark, but it's hard to demonstrate that the outcome is significant, accurate, or even meaningful. And for whatever reason[0], misinformation tends to be stickier than truths. If I were Oracle, I'd get tired of dispelling bad benchmarks real fast, so much so that I'd go as far as prohibiting publishing benchmarks in the ToS, just to avoid dealing with it. For example, APFS vs. HFS+ (filesystems are a kind of hierarchical database, so it's not that big a stretch). Multiple secondary sources, citing the the same outdated benchmark from months ago, declare that APFS is slower than HFS+. Here's one from HN[1], with some back & forth arguments and further ad-hoc measurements. Yet nobody bothered running or even mentioned fio. Or the "ZFS will eat your data if you don't use ECC memory" meme that refuse to die. [0] Maybe it's because in order to refute "X is bad is wrong", it's hard to not state "X is bad" first, and biased / less astute audiences tend to stop paying attention after absorbing "X is bad"[2]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15384774 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15384774 [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJD1Iwy5lUY&t=46s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJD1Iwy5lUY&t=46s
cup-of-tea 9y ago
Unbelievable. Unfortunately Oracle will stick around thanks to the non-technical people in large organisations that control the money and like products they can "trust".

SomeHacker44 9y ago

Sure sounds like they're an ex-user of Oracle and not a user. :)

vkjv 9y ago

If they are no longer using it, would the license still apply?

7265626F6F74 9y ago
Even if they are an ex-user of Oracle products, they would have had to benchmark the software at a time the were using it or have someone who is using it benchmark it. Either way a benchmark would be made at some point while an Oracle product user, which taking kuschku's word for it, is against the license agreement.
- mjw1007 9y ago
  Looking at the license agreement, it doesn't prohibit running benchmarks and recording their results, so if you ask me they wouldn't be breaking the agreement at the time they were bound by it. (Of course nobody in danger of getting involved in a court case with Oracle is going to be asking me.)
  - kuschku 9y ago
    Well, it does exactly that, doesn’t it? > You may not […] > - disclose results of any program benchmark tests without our prior consent.
    - mjw1007 9y ago
      The point is that performing the benchmarks and disclosing the results can happen at different times.

tschwimmer 9y ago

This is absolutely 100% insane. Imagine if CPU makers prevented you from running PassMark. Hell, imagine if car's manufacturer warranty was voided if you took it to a dynamometer. Why do we as a society allow these absurd rent seeking practices like these? What possible social good could come from preventing discussion about an enterprise software product?

kuschku 9y ago
> Hell, imagine if car's manufacturer warranty was voided if you took it to a dynamometer. Ferrari has the right to force you to give your car back if you do anything unauthorized with it, including any modification, or any unapproved testing. This was why Deadmau5 had to give back his Purrari (he modified the logo and theme to a nyancat theme)
- ben-schaaf 9y ago
  This sounds like bullshit to me. If you own the car you have every right to modify it. It's your property. I can see Ferrari not selling you any new cars because you did something they don't like, but I don't see how they have e the right to force you to give your car back (which you paid for) if you modify it.
  - kuschku 9y ago
    Well, because you don’t buy the car. Ferrari owns it, you buy a license to use it. Just like with all your online services, or your software.
    - dagw 9y ago
      Ferrari owns it, you buy a license to use it. That sounds like sort of claim that should be backed up with some pretty significant evidence.
      - omginternets 9y ago

bostik 9y ago

The beauty of course being that the mere existence of such a clause tells you more than enough about the performance characteristics. Now, I'm not going to discount Oracle entirely. From what I've learned from some truly hardcore DBAs, there are certain workloads and scenarios where Oracle is still unbeatable.[ß] But outside those special cases, postgres is the rational, correct choice. ß: For example, if you have insane performance requirements on a single system, I have been explained that oracle can be used with their own "fs" layer, which in turn runs directly on top of block device layer. Essentially, a bare-bones file system designed for nothing but their own DB usage.

RJIb8RBYxzAMX9u 9y ago
I'll play devil's advocate: it's easy to benchmark, but it's hard to demonstrate that the outcome is significant, accurate, or even meaningful. And for whatever reason[0], misinformation tends to be stickier than truths. If I were Oracle, I'd get tired of dispelling bad benchmarks real fast, so much so that I'd go as far as prohibiting publishing benchmarks in the ToS, just to avoid dealing with it. For example, APFS vs. HFS+ (filesystems are a kind of hierarchical database, so it's not that big a stretch). Multiple secondary sources, citing the the same outdated benchmark from months ago, declare that APFS is slower than HFS+. Here's one from HN[1], with some back & forth arguments and further ad-hoc measurements. Yet nobody bothered running or even mentioned fio. Or the "ZFS will eat your data if you don't use ECC memory" meme that refuse to die. [0] Maybe it's because in order to refute "X is bad is wrong", it's hard to not state "X is bad" first, and biased / less astute audiences tend to stop paying attention after absorbing "X is bad"[2]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15384774 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15384774 [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJD1Iwy5lUY&t=46s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJD1Iwy5lUY&t=46s

cup-of-tea 9y ago

Unbelievable. Unfortunately Oracle will stick around thanks to the non-technical people in large organisations that control the money and like products they can "trust".