3 ms·

They can charge it because if you really need Oracle, there really is no substitute. 12c is genuinely state-of-the-art, Exadata does things that only mainframes

by gaius 9y ago

They can charge it because if you really need Oracle, there really is no substitute. 12c is genuinely state-of-the-art, Exadata does things that only mainframes can otherwise do and a bunch of stuff that they can't. There are far fewer people however that do really need it, than believe that they do... The vast majority of Oracle shops could probably switch to Postgres for less than their annual licenses, then start saving the money from the second year on... My rule of thumb is that Postgres gets you 50% of Oracle for 0% of the price. Most of what most people need is somewhere in that 50%. SQL Server gets you 90% for 25% of the cost. I think Oracle will lose a lot of seats to SQL Server once it's stable on Linux.

jorams 9y ago
> My rule of thumb is that Postgres gets you 50% of Oracle for 0% of the price. Most of what most people need is somewhere in that 50%. SQL Server gets you 90% for 25% of the cost. Can you elaborate on what kinds of things fill the 40% difference between PG and MSSQL? Having used both PostgreSQL and SQL Server, my experience has been pretty much the other way around. When I need to do something with data in a table, PG probably has a feature allowing me to do it easily, and MSSQL probably doesn't. The simplest questions asked on Stack Overflow are answered with functions spanning tens of lines, often with various caveats. The one area where MSSQL is clearly better than PG is GUI tooling, but even there I'm not particularly impressed. More than once have I read that someone absolutely loved SQL Server Management Studio, but the one conclusion I can come to after using it is "it works". For example, "Select Top 1000 Rows" is a fine view with autocompletion and everything, but then "Edit Top 200 Rows" has an SQL panel hidden behind a context menu, without autocompletion, and when you execute your modified query it rewrites it and removes all comments.
- gaius 9y ago
  Can you elaborate on what kinds of things fill the 40% difference between PG and MSSQL? SQL Server is well ahead of PG in query parallelisation and complex replication topologies, even as of PG 10.1. SQL Server is also ahead in change data capture, but PG 10 narrowed that gap. Managing a large user base is easier on SQL Server. If you have those use cases it is well worth the money. If I need to do something clever with the contents of the table, SQL Server's embedded R is very good. Having used both PostgreSQL and SQL Server, Well indeed, most people only use a subset of their DB's full feature set, but it will be a different subset for each person :-) I don't really use GUI tools so I can't comment on that but I've heard that pgAdmin 4 is awful.
  - jorams 9y ago
    Thank you, that's the kind of answer I was looking for. Those are indeed not things I've worked with. > I've heard that pgAdmin 4 is awful. I've heard the same. I wasn't a fan of pgAdmin 3 either, so I've stuck with the psql command line.
    - gaius 9y ago
      Thank you, that's the kind of answer I was looking for I love that in the HN community we can have these conversations without it descending into a platform war :-) I did alot of Oracle up to SQL Server 2012 then just didn't need it any more, SQL Server + PG 9 and now 10 hit all my use cases for a tiny fraction of the cost. Now I wonder why so many people still pay so much for it.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - orf 9y ago
      > I've heard the same. I wasn't a fan of pgAdmin 3 either, so I've stuck with the psql command line. In case you haven't heard of it, I highly highly recommend pgcli[1] if anyone reading this is doing the same as you and me but hasn't highly customized their psql shell yet. It's one of those tools I wish I had known about earlier. 1. https://www.pgcli.com/ https://www.pgcli.com/
- grumpydba 9y ago
  Well as a postgres/sybase dba, there are several management features I miss in postgres. For one, when there is no space left for wals, your instance juste crashes. In sybase/mssql your processes would just be suspended untill you add some disk space. Also, spreading your databases on several disks is way easier. On postrgres adding tablespaces makes pg_basebackup lose functionality. Those are some several limitations that the developper might not see, but they impact availlability. Also, reclaiming unused space online can be tedious, and failover from one instance to another is not easy. You have to use 3rd party tools such as repman to do so. All of thoses missing features have caused several outages and should be addresses in my opinion to be able to meet the needs of the most demanding workloads. Still, I view postgres as the best solution for most business cases.
  - orf 9y ago
    > For one, when there is no space left for wals, your instance juste crashes. In sybase/mssql your processes would just be suspended untill you add some disk space. Are these not equivalent from the point of view of external clients?
    - barrkel 9y ago
      Blocking is not normally equivalent to termination for most processes, and not all database activity is from human interaction.
pjmlp 9y ago
pgSQL is still not quite there when compared to PL/SQL. And PostgreSQL lacks tooling at the same level as APEX, SQL Developer, JDBC/.NET drivers (specially bulk operations and distributed transactions).
- gaius 9y ago
  If you colour between the lines, APEX is fantastically productive, agreed.
- fiddlerwoaroof 9y ago
  I work for an Oracle shop and I actively try to avoid using SQL Developer: on Mac at least, it’s a resource hog and fairly slow and, additionally, it’s autocomplete facilities are fairly flaky. These days I just use the DB integration built into IntelliJ which is much nicer. (And not limited to one DB)
- snaky 9y ago
  > pgSQL is still not quite there when compared to PL/SQL. Yes, but maybe it's a good thing after all. pgSQL is small, and mostly clear and restrictive, there's no bunch of imperative features and dark corners. The main point of PostgreSQL always was extendability, so it supports a broad list of programming languages for stored procedures. To address efficiency concerns, executor's JIT is on the way - https://postgrespro.com/roadmap/56509 https://postgrespro.com/roadmap/56509
merb 9y ago
> 12c is genuinely state-of-the-art i know a lot of companies that are still on 11g. and this is not in any way state-of-the art, heck it does not even have a limit clause. It's hard to actually trust your statement that 12c is so much better, when 11g was basically trash.
- gaius 9y ago
  11g was basically trash Because it was lacking a tiny piece of syntactic sugar? Just use ROWNUM.
  - merb 9y ago
    if it would've been just that... but if your "express" edition is harder to configure/install than a kubernetes cluster (the hard way) than something is really really wrong.
  - orf 9y ago
    It's a bit more than that. Django has a lot workarounds[1] for Oracle and it's strange ways. 1. https://github.com/django/django/blob/master/django/db/backends/oracle/operations.py https://github.com/django/django/blob/master/django/db/backe...
    - gaius 9y ago
      No one who needs Oracle cares about quirky syntax. They care that Flashback Query or some other major feature works.
      - orf 9y ago
        Good for them, but that doesn't reduce the maintenance burden for anyone trying to write database agnostic software. I guess that's a good business strategy if you are in oracle's position. In any case your original quote was "Because it was lacking a tiny piece of syntactic sugar?", and I was merely pointing out that it is a bit more than some syntactic sugar.

by gaius 9y ago

jorams 9y ago

> My rule of thumb is that Postgres gets you 50% of Oracle for 0% of the price. Most of what most people need is somewhere in that 50%. SQL Server gets you 90% for 25% of the cost. Can you elaborate on what kinds of things fill the 40% difference between PG and MSSQL? Having used both PostgreSQL and SQL Server, my experience has been pretty much the other way around. When I need to do something with data in a table, PG probably has a feature allowing me to do it easily, and MSSQL probably doesn't. The simplest questions asked on Stack Overflow are answered with functions spanning tens of lines, often with various caveats. The one area where MSSQL is clearly better than PG is GUI tooling, but even there I'm not particularly impressed. More than once have I read that someone absolutely loved SQL Server Management Studio, but the one conclusion I can come to after using it is "it works". For example, "Select Top 1000 Rows" is a fine view with autocompletion and everything, but then "Edit Top 200 Rows" has an SQL panel hidden behind a context menu, without autocompletion, and when you execute your modified query it rewrites it and removes all comments.

gaius 9y ago
Can you elaborate on what kinds of things fill the 40% difference between PG and MSSQL? SQL Server is well ahead of PG in query parallelisation and complex replication topologies, even as of PG 10.1. SQL Server is also ahead in change data capture, but PG 10 narrowed that gap. Managing a large user base is easier on SQL Server. If you have those use cases it is well worth the money. If I need to do something clever with the contents of the table, SQL Server's embedded R is very good. Having used both PostgreSQL and SQL Server, Well indeed, most people only use a subset of their DB's full feature set, but it will be a different subset for each person :-) I don't really use GUI tools so I can't comment on that but I've heard that pgAdmin 4 is awful.
- jorams 9y ago
  Thank you, that's the kind of answer I was looking for. Those are indeed not things I've worked with. > I've heard that pgAdmin 4 is awful. I've heard the same. I wasn't a fan of pgAdmin 3 either, so I've stuck with the psql command line.
  - gaius 9y ago
    Thank you, that's the kind of answer I was looking for I love that in the HN community we can have these conversations without it descending into a platform war :-) I did alot of Oracle up to SQL Server 2012 then just didn't need it any more, SQL Server + PG 9 and now 10 hit all my use cases for a tiny fraction of the cost. Now I wonder why so many people still pay so much for it.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - orf 9y ago
    > I've heard the same. I wasn't a fan of pgAdmin 3 either, so I've stuck with the psql command line. In case you haven't heard of it, I highly highly recommend pgcli[1] if anyone reading this is doing the same as you and me but hasn't highly customized their psql shell yet. It's one of those tools I wish I had known about earlier. 1. https://www.pgcli.com/ https://www.pgcli.com/
grumpydba 9y ago
Well as a postgres/sybase dba, there are several management features I miss in postgres. For one, when there is no space left for wals, your instance juste crashes. In sybase/mssql your processes would just be suspended untill you add some disk space. Also, spreading your databases on several disks is way easier. On postrgres adding tablespaces makes pg_basebackup lose functionality. Those are some several limitations that the developper might not see, but they impact availlability. Also, reclaiming unused space online can be tedious, and failover from one instance to another is not easy. You have to use 3rd party tools such as repman to do so. All of thoses missing features have caused several outages and should be addresses in my opinion to be able to meet the needs of the most demanding workloads. Still, I view postgres as the best solution for most business cases.
- orf 9y ago
  > For one, when there is no space left for wals, your instance juste crashes. In sybase/mssql your processes would just be suspended untill you add some disk space. Are these not equivalent from the point of view of external clients?
  - barrkel 9y ago
    Blocking is not normally equivalent to termination for most processes, and not all database activity is from human interaction.

pjmlp 9y ago

pgSQL is still not quite there when compared to PL/SQL. And PostgreSQL lacks tooling at the same level as APEX, SQL Developer, JDBC/.NET drivers (specially bulk operations and distributed transactions).

gaius 9y ago
If you colour between the lines, APEX is fantastically productive, agreed.
fiddlerwoaroof 9y ago
I work for an Oracle shop and I actively try to avoid using SQL Developer: on Mac at least, it’s a resource hog and fairly slow and, additionally, it’s autocomplete facilities are fairly flaky. These days I just use the DB integration built into IntelliJ which is much nicer. (And not limited to one DB)
snaky 9y ago
> pgSQL is still not quite there when compared to PL/SQL. Yes, but maybe it's a good thing after all. pgSQL is small, and mostly clear and restrictive, there's no bunch of imperative features and dark corners. The main point of PostgreSQL always was extendability, so it supports a broad list of programming languages for stored procedures. To address efficiency concerns, executor's JIT is on the way - https://postgrespro.com/roadmap/56509 https://postgrespro.com/roadmap/56509

merb 9y ago

> 12c is genuinely state-of-the-art i know a lot of companies that are still on 11g. and this is not in any way state-of-the art, heck it does not even have a limit clause. It's hard to actually trust your statement that 12c is so much better, when 11g was basically trash.

gaius 9y ago
11g was basically trash Because it was lacking a tiny piece of syntactic sugar? Just use ROWNUM.
- merb 9y ago
  if it would've been just that... but if your "express" edition is harder to configure/install than a kubernetes cluster (the hard way) than something is really really wrong.
- orf 9y ago
  It's a bit more than that. Django has a lot workarounds[1] for Oracle and it's strange ways. 1. https://github.com/django/django/blob/master/django/db/backends/oracle/operations.py https://github.com/django/django/blob/master/django/db/backe...
  - gaius 9y ago
    No one who needs Oracle cares about quirky syntax. They care that Flashback Query or some other major feature works.
    - orf 9y ago
      Good for them, but that doesn't reduce the maintenance burden for anyone trying to write database agnostic software. I guess that's a good business strategy if you are in oracle's position. In any case your original quote was "Because it was lacking a tiny piece of syntactic sugar?", and I was merely pointing out that it is a bit more than some syntactic sugar.