3 ms·
> That's not a very useful comparison. Databases are made to execute queries, not to install them. The only useful metric is performance and features (and price
by koolba 6y ago
> That's not a very useful comparison. Databases are made to execute queries, not to install them. The only useful metric is performance and features (and price, of course). Sure, Oracle is bloated and pain to manage, but if it works faster, provides unique features and costs less in the end, people will use it.
Initial installation may not matter much but long maintenance windows directly lead to higher costs. If every patch requires a 60-90 minute downtime, you're going to pay for that in production deploy time.
- vbezhenar 6y agoThat depends on a service. For example I'm working on a service which is used by people at working hours (something like 8AM - 19PM, Mon-Fri). I can do anything outside of that window (well, +-30 minutes just to be sure) and nobody's going to pay for it, most likely nobody would even notice. And for service that's expected to work without interruptions, I think, there should be a way to switch to a secondary database, otherwise those promises are futile. And if there's a way to switch to a secondary database, long patch install time is not a big deal. Because whether it's 1 minute or 60 minutes, it's interruption nonetheless.