4 ms·

We got hit by that. Oracle used to charge us per physical core on our production nodes, with a discount for development and backup/spare. Then suddenly they c

We got hit by that. Oracle used to charge us per physical core on our production nodes, with a discount for development and backup/spare. Then suddenly they changed how it was licensed and our bill jumped up 4x (we're talking a six figure increase). We negotiated it down somewhat (closer to a 2.5x increase as a "goodwill discount"), but since then have been quietly making changes to the code-base to make a future SQL Server migration easier. We have four years left in this contract, and we hope to be ready by then. We're on Oracle at all because we used to use their application development suite (ADF, Forms, etc), but those all either got discontinued or turn so sour you don't want to be using them, so now Oracle DB is just a remnant.

amenod 8y ago
If you don't mind me asking, how is the SQL Server as far as price goes? I know Oracle is very expensive, is SQL Server cheaper for a similar usage pattern? Also curious, what made you decide not to use PostgreSQL (or EnterpriseDB if you need entreprise solution)? Was it a technical reason or are you more comfortable with MS solutions in general? I am asking because I have mostly used MySQL (pre-Oracle) and now PostgreSQL, and have always wondered what made people choose either Oracle or SQL Server. I have met both in different jobs - I hate Oracle with passion because of their licensins shenanigans, and wasn't impressed by SQL Server (though that might be in part that I was using it with SharePoint, which was... something).
- greedo 8y ago
  SQL Server now uses the same licensing strategy as Oracle in virtual environments.
  - progre 8y ago
    Citation needed
  - Someone1234 8y ago
    SQL Server offers two different license models (at Enterprise tier). Per physical core or per virtual core. If you license all the physical cores you can run as many copies of SQL Server as your infrastructure will allow. If you want to run SQL Server as a partial part of a private cloud then licensing per virtual core could be a significant savings in some circumstances. This is because physical cores used for other things won't require a license. This article has more info: https://blogs.flexera.com/elo/2017/06/an-introduction-to-microsoft-sql-server-licensing/ https://blogs.flexera.com/elo/2017/06/an-introduction-to-mic...
- Someone1234 8y ago
  > If you don't mind me asking, how is the SQL Server as far as price goes? You can use this to get a very ballpark idea: https://wintelguy.com/mssql-ent-licensing-calc.pl https://wintelguy.com/mssql-ent-licensing-calc.pl From actual quotes at full price, we'd be paying around the same to Microsoft for SQL Server Enterprise than we were paying Oracle BEFORE the price hike/license changes. However that doesn't include discounts which most organizations running any Microsoft software at all would be eligible for. So in other words: Almost always cheaper than Oracle Database. Varies between a little cheaper and substantially cheaper. Both companies are trying to drag you towards Cloud however, so there's deeper discounts there right now (it's a trap!). > Also curious, what made you decide not to use PostgreSQL (or EnterpriseDB if you need entreprise solution)? No one person decided. This is a large organization that moves slowly and is fairly conservative. Plus the costs of migration are high, if migration fails people in management will suffer (either to their career or just outright be transferred/fired). So in other words "nobody gets fired for buying Microsoft" or w/e. It certainly doesn't hurt that it is much easier to hire/contract in SQL Server talent than PostgreSQL. Technical considerations play a part, but only up to the point where it has to have what we need. > I am asking because I have mostly used MySQL (pre-Oracle) and now PostgreSQL, and have always wondered what made people choose either Oracle or SQL Server. That's because you're considering what is best using logic, reason, and technical facts. In the enterprise space more often than not major companies just follow the crowd, with a handful of trailblazers setting the standard. Oracle and SQL Server are popular because they're already popular, in a fully circular way. If I started a business tomorrow I'd use PostgreSQL. But if I was a C-level in an enterprise and my career is on the line, I am going to be sticking with SQL Server.
  - chiph 8y ago
    They also get picked because they have excellent vendor support behind them. As well as third-party ecosystems.
    - privateSFacct 8y ago
      This. If you are c-level you aren't touching the code, but you like the idea of paying the people who built the thing a support contract so you can call and yell at them when you misuse the product and it falls over. The alignment between product support and product builder is muddier for c-levels to follow.
- matwood 8y ago
  > Also curious, what made you decide not to use PostgreSQL (or EnterpriseDB if you need entreprise solution)? Keep in mind that MSSQL enterprise comes with a lot of tools beyond just a RDBMS. That was always the hangup when I have tried to move companies from MSSQL to something like PG.
  - pdimitar 8y ago
    Can you give example of several useful tools in the MSSQL garden?
    - matwood 8y ago
      Sure. Two of the main ones I used were MSSQL Analysis Services and Integration Services. I built and managed a data warehouse/internal reporting system for a fairly large telecom. I used ~100 ETL packages built in SSIS to pull in data from systems all over the company, SSAS to process the data and SSRS to build reports. It worked pretty well at the time 10+ years ago.
agumonkey 8y ago
I sense Oracle soil will collapse quite fast. JVM speed can only keep people interested so far .. and a lot of smart people are into language and compilation these days.
- alexis_fr 8y ago
  From my observation it’s much easier to recruit Java devs than Node devs, for example (I’m located in an average city, not a leading one like SF or NY). I’ve closed my Node projects because it seems to be too early to recruit and train interns in this area.
  - pdimitar 8y ago
    Being able to easily recruit programmers in a popular stack says nothing of their quality as professionals though. If anything, I've seen a lot of non-programmers disguised as Java programmers. Armies of them in enterprise teams. A truckload of expense for not much gain. I'm not saying it's everywhere like that of course. I've met brilliant Java developers when I contracted for SAP. So how do you deal with such a risk? If I had to hire I'd search programmers of less popular languages -- and only 3-5 of them. These people tend to be insanely productive and have very good perspective and culture.
alexis_fr 8y ago
It’s a running joke in companies that Hibernate/JPA helps us abstract from the database « in case we change DBs », and how it never happens because we’re tied to specifics of the DB anyway (Oracle counts nulls = empty strings, for example). I guess the day has come to make use of this feature.
- victor106 8y ago
  This is not entirely true. Hibernate/JPA has lots to dislike but it does have constructs for different databases and while it’s not a snap to change db’s It’s not even that bad. We did a recent change on a fairly large application and it took us 3 weeks. 1 week dev and 2 week testing.
  - vbezhenar 8y ago
    It's definitely not a myth. Jira supports PostgreSQL, MS SQL, H2, Oracle. I think that Hibernate helps tremendously with that. Sure, you have to take extra care anyway, but the differences between databases are real and there's enough code in Hibernate to smooth those differences.
    - chii 8y ago
      Jira doesn't use hibernate.
fma 8y ago
I'm in the same boat. Default was Oracle, but now we have more options. The order of preference per management is Postgres -> SQL -> Oracle. New applications need a deviation to use Oracle.

amenod 8y ago

If you don't mind me asking, how is the SQL Server as far as price goes? I know Oracle is very expensive, is SQL Server cheaper for a similar usage pattern? Also curious, what made you decide not to use PostgreSQL (or EnterpriseDB if you need entreprise solution)? Was it a technical reason or are you more comfortable with MS solutions in general? I am asking because I have mostly used MySQL (pre-Oracle) and now PostgreSQL, and have always wondered what made people choose either Oracle or SQL Server. I have met both in different jobs - I hate Oracle with passion because of their licensins shenanigans, and wasn't impressed by SQL Server (though that might be in part that I was using it with SharePoint, which was... something).

greedo 8y ago
SQL Server now uses the same licensing strategy as Oracle in virtual environments.
- progre 8y ago
  Citation needed
- Someone1234 8y ago
  SQL Server offers two different license models (at Enterprise tier). Per physical core or per virtual core. If you license all the physical cores you can run as many copies of SQL Server as your infrastructure will allow. If you want to run SQL Server as a partial part of a private cloud then licensing per virtual core could be a significant savings in some circumstances. This is because physical cores used for other things won't require a license. This article has more info: https://blogs.flexera.com/elo/2017/06/an-introduction-to-microsoft-sql-server-licensing/ https://blogs.flexera.com/elo/2017/06/an-introduction-to-mic...
Someone1234 8y ago
> If you don't mind me asking, how is the SQL Server as far as price goes? You can use this to get a very ballpark idea: https://wintelguy.com/mssql-ent-licensing-calc.pl https://wintelguy.com/mssql-ent-licensing-calc.pl From actual quotes at full price, we'd be paying around the same to Microsoft for SQL Server Enterprise than we were paying Oracle BEFORE the price hike/license changes. However that doesn't include discounts which most organizations running any Microsoft software at all would be eligible for. So in other words: Almost always cheaper than Oracle Database. Varies between a little cheaper and substantially cheaper. Both companies are trying to drag you towards Cloud however, so there's deeper discounts there right now (it's a trap!). > Also curious, what made you decide not to use PostgreSQL (or EnterpriseDB if you need entreprise solution)? No one person decided. This is a large organization that moves slowly and is fairly conservative. Plus the costs of migration are high, if migration fails people in management will suffer (either to their career or just outright be transferred/fired). So in other words "nobody gets fired for buying Microsoft" or w/e. It certainly doesn't hurt that it is much easier to hire/contract in SQL Server talent than PostgreSQL. Technical considerations play a part, but only up to the point where it has to have what we need. > I am asking because I have mostly used MySQL (pre-Oracle) and now PostgreSQL, and have always wondered what made people choose either Oracle or SQL Server. That's because you're considering what is best using logic, reason, and technical facts. In the enterprise space more often than not major companies just follow the crowd, with a handful of trailblazers setting the standard. Oracle and SQL Server are popular because they're already popular, in a fully circular way. If I started a business tomorrow I'd use PostgreSQL. But if I was a C-level in an enterprise and my career is on the line, I am going to be sticking with SQL Server.
- chiph 8y ago
  They also get picked because they have excellent vendor support behind them. As well as third-party ecosystems.
  - privateSFacct 8y ago
    This. If you are c-level you aren't touching the code, but you like the idea of paying the people who built the thing a support contract so you can call and yell at them when you misuse the product and it falls over. The alignment between product support and product builder is muddier for c-levels to follow.
matwood 8y ago
> Also curious, what made you decide not to use PostgreSQL (or EnterpriseDB if you need entreprise solution)? Keep in mind that MSSQL enterprise comes with a lot of tools beyond just a RDBMS. That was always the hangup when I have tried to move companies from MSSQL to something like PG.
- pdimitar 8y ago
  Can you give example of several useful tools in the MSSQL garden?
  - matwood 8y ago
    Sure. Two of the main ones I used were MSSQL Analysis Services and Integration Services. I built and managed a data warehouse/internal reporting system for a fairly large telecom. I used ~100 ETL packages built in SSIS to pull in data from systems all over the company, SSAS to process the data and SSRS to build reports. It worked pretty well at the time 10+ years ago.

agumonkey 8y ago

I sense Oracle soil will collapse quite fast. JVM speed can only keep people interested so far .. and a lot of smart people are into language and compilation these days.

alexis_fr 8y ago
From my observation it’s much easier to recruit Java devs than Node devs, for example (I’m located in an average city, not a leading one like SF or NY). I’ve closed my Node projects because it seems to be too early to recruit and train interns in this area.
- pdimitar 8y ago
  Being able to easily recruit programmers in a popular stack says nothing of their quality as professionals though. If anything, I've seen a lot of non-programmers disguised as Java programmers. Armies of them in enterprise teams. A truckload of expense for not much gain. I'm not saying it's everywhere like that of course. I've met brilliant Java developers when I contracted for SAP. So how do you deal with such a risk? If I had to hire I'd search programmers of less popular languages -- and only 3-5 of them. These people tend to be insanely productive and have very good perspective and culture.

alexis_fr 8y ago

It’s a running joke in companies that Hibernate/JPA helps us abstract from the database « in case we change DBs », and how it never happens because we’re tied to specifics of the DB anyway (Oracle counts nulls = empty strings, for example). I guess the day has come to make use of this feature.

victor106 8y ago
This is not entirely true. Hibernate/JPA has lots to dislike but it does have constructs for different databases and while it’s not a snap to change db’s It’s not even that bad. We did a recent change on a fairly large application and it took us 3 weeks. 1 week dev and 2 week testing.
- vbezhenar 8y ago
  It's definitely not a myth. Jira supports PostgreSQL, MS SQL, H2, Oracle. I think that Hibernate helps tremendously with that. Sure, you have to take extra care anyway, but the differences between databases are real and there's enough code in Hibernate to smooth those differences.
  - chii 8y ago
    Jira doesn't use hibernate.

fma 8y ago

I'm in the same boat. Default was Oracle, but now we have more options. The order of preference per management is Postgres -> SQL -> Oracle. New applications need a deviation to use Oracle.