7 ms·

I'm surprised to see that Oracle even has as many mentions as it does, given how rarely you read about it here on HN. We're locked into it at my workplace, and

I'm surprised to see that Oracle even has as many mentions as it does, given how rarely you read about it here on HN. We're locked into it at my workplace, and every time I'm reminded of this PG quote I cringe a little: "The more of an IT flavor the job descriptions had, the less dangerous was the company. The safest kind were the ones that wanted Oracle experience. You never had to worry about those."

mmx 15y ago
I was wondering the same thing. Our startup currently uses it when doing research on data sets, but it's a db I don't hear about very often when talking about startups. I'm assuming a big factor is price.
- ltamake 15y ago
  Yeah, Oracle is mostly used by bigger companies.
- mirkules 15y ago
  The licensing is really an issue, especially when you get into the higher-end. They don't charge per computer, they charge per CPU. So you'll have to pay 4x as much in a dual CPU system (I'm not sure if they have a similar licensing structure for dual-core or quad-core systems)
- varikin 15y ago
  I use to work with Oracle daily (previous job) and now I use MySQL mostly with some Postgres and SQLServer at times (lots of client work). I would say all these databases are worthwhile as long as the DBA is competent. Given that, unless you have a reason to choose Oracle (e.g. familiarity, integration with other applications, a specific Oracle only feature, contractual obligation), I see no reason to choose Oracle. Many companies choose Oracle because Oracle built a solid database/brand early on while catering to big businesses. MySQL and Postgres made great progress in the past decade make them valid alternatives.
cosgroveb 15y ago
I suspect that it's the HNers still toiling away in large companies that are voting for Oracle. You'd probably see about as many votes for DB2 had it been an option.
- nollidge 15y ago
  Same with Sybase.
- umjames 15y ago
  You are correct in my case. We use Oracle, MS SQL Server, and Sybase because that's what the vendorware we use requires. We do have some open-source software that uses MySQL for administrative purposes.
justlearning 15y ago
Having Oracle as your db doesn't mean that you are not working on interesting problems. Every company is not a startup. Some of us work on well established products used by huge customer base who use Oracle and in turn we are forced to. Above all, are you helping a customer? solve his problems instead of compounding it - that my friend is more important than choosing Oracle or Mongodb.
- bad_user 15y ago
  Having Oracle as your db doesn't mean that you are not working on interesting problems First, I consider consultancy for customers using Oracle to be OK, as long as you earn something from it. But if your company chooses Oracle, it means that you're bogged down by legacy, stupid company processes and/or clueless managers. And in most such environments, the harder you try to change it for the better, the harder it fights back, putting yourself in an awkward position in which you are considered the bad apple of the team. So you end up either adapting (not giving a shit), quitting or finding some small project with no perspective for the company (i.e. less controlled) that can bring you pleasure. Of course, some companies, like Adobe for example, use Oracle when it doesn't impact their core competencies, as it's a safe choice for corporate types. But a company like Adobe doesn't earn money from projects that are relying on Oracle and other projects inside Adobe are also using HBase and MySql and their own distributed file-system that can be queried and so forth. Either way that quote is correct. I'm not promoting the latest fads (personally I'm not into NoSql unless it makes absolute sense), but you can safely ignore companies that make decisions based on brochures and lap dances.
  - brown9-2 15y ago
    I hope you realize that a company might choose to use Oracle for a reason other than "brochures and lap dances", and that a "legacy" decision to use Oracle doesn't necessarily mean you are "bogged down" or that the decision was stupid. I don't understand how using Oracle for your RDBMS is suddenly equated with all the things you mention.
    - bad_user 15y ago
ibejoeb 15y ago
I'm probably starting to sound like a broken record around here, but: 1. I build products on Oracle at a startup. 2. Oracle has many compelling features that really don't have first-class open source alternatives: OLAP, encryption (wire and at-rest), VPD, materialized views with query rewriting, object and document storage, monitoring and tracing, among others... 3. Oracle got more compelling since being offered--license included!--on Amazon RDS. There are a ton of responses for Microsoft; why doesn't anyone question that? Actually, I'm curious now. Is there a new incentive for SQL Server? Maybe something in BizSpark that makes it attractive?
- kahawe 15y ago
  Also, do not forget or underestimate the cheek-in-tongue "Nobody got fired for buying Oracle" in this case.
- pyre 15y ago
  We actually have our own extensions to use Perl filehandles to write directly to Oracle LOBs. I don't know if that is Oracle-specific or if it can be used elsewhere. I've never cracked open the implementation.
- alextingle 15y ago
  It is perplexing that Microsoft (presumably SQL-Server) has got so many votes. In my experience, absolutely nobody chooses to use it. They just have aggressive sales people who use it as a bargaining chip to elbow out Oracle and help win other business.
  - deskamess 15y ago
    I started out with Oracle on AIX, then Sybase on Solaris, then Postgres 8.3 on Windows and Linux, and am currently using MS SQL Server. Postgress (8.3 on Linux) is currently used for an inventory db in house, and SQL Server is used for most apps that reside at customer premises. Sybase was better than Oracle, and Postgres was just as good as Sybase at that time. But SQL Server (version 2005 on) has stood taller than all of them in my view. Excellent management tools, stable, reliable and no performance issues for our apps. Most of our apps are write light and read heavy with thousands of users hitting the db - served off one Win 2003 server (we have a warm spare). So there is some truth to your statement about nobody choosing to use it - for us the primary motivation to not use it internally was cost. At our customer premises they picked up the tab. We have MSDN so sql server development licenses are not an issue. Have not met a Microsoft salesperson yet!
jacques_chester 15y ago
Oracle is all over the place. My daily bread-and-butter relies on Oracle. For some thing it is, as I like to say, more 1980s than Top Gun crossed with Duran Duran -- still no SQL boolean type after 30 years! -- but for other things it has no peer except DB2, Sybase and SQL Server.
ww520 15y ago
Oracle Express actually has a free license. The Express version has most of the same functions as the expensive versions except the 5GB limit on database size. If your app doesn't require lots of data but needs all the SQL power, it's a good choice.

mmx 15y ago

I was wondering the same thing. Our startup currently uses it when doing research on data sets, but it's a db I don't hear about very often when talking about startups. I'm assuming a big factor is price.

ltamake 15y ago
Yeah, Oracle is mostly used by bigger companies.
mirkules 15y ago
The licensing is really an issue, especially when you get into the higher-end. They don't charge per computer, they charge per CPU. So you'll have to pay 4x as much in a dual CPU system (I'm not sure if they have a similar licensing structure for dual-core or quad-core systems)
varikin 15y ago
I use to work with Oracle daily (previous job) and now I use MySQL mostly with some Postgres and SQLServer at times (lots of client work). I would say all these databases are worthwhile as long as the DBA is competent. Given that, unless you have a reason to choose Oracle (e.g. familiarity, integration with other applications, a specific Oracle only feature, contractual obligation), I see no reason to choose Oracle. Many companies choose Oracle because Oracle built a solid database/brand early on while catering to big businesses. MySQL and Postgres made great progress in the past decade make them valid alternatives.

cosgroveb 15y ago

I suspect that it's the HNers still toiling away in large companies that are voting for Oracle. You'd probably see about as many votes for DB2 had it been an option.

nollidge 15y ago
Same with Sybase.
umjames 15y ago
You are correct in my case. We use Oracle, MS SQL Server, and Sybase because that's what the vendorware we use requires. We do have some open-source software that uses MySQL for administrative purposes.

justlearning 15y ago

Having Oracle as your db doesn't mean that you are not working on interesting problems. Every company is not a startup. Some of us work on well established products used by huge customer base who use Oracle and in turn we are forced to. Above all, are you helping a customer? solve his problems instead of compounding it - that my friend is more important than choosing Oracle or Mongodb.

bad_user 15y ago
Having Oracle as your db doesn't mean that you are not working on interesting problems First, I consider consultancy for customers using Oracle to be OK, as long as you earn something from it. But if your company chooses Oracle, it means that you're bogged down by legacy, stupid company processes and/or clueless managers. And in most such environments, the harder you try to change it for the better, the harder it fights back, putting yourself in an awkward position in which you are considered the bad apple of the team. So you end up either adapting (not giving a shit), quitting or finding some small project with no perspective for the company (i.e. less controlled) that can bring you pleasure. Of course, some companies, like Adobe for example, use Oracle when it doesn't impact their core competencies, as it's a safe choice for corporate types. But a company like Adobe doesn't earn money from projects that are relying on Oracle and other projects inside Adobe are also using HBase and MySql and their own distributed file-system that can be queried and so forth. Either way that quote is correct. I'm not promoting the latest fads (personally I'm not into NoSql unless it makes absolute sense), but you can safely ignore companies that make decisions based on brochures and lap dances.
- brown9-2 15y ago
  I hope you realize that a company might choose to use Oracle for a reason other than "brochures and lap dances", and that a "legacy" decision to use Oracle doesn't necessarily mean you are "bogged down" or that the decision was stupid. I don't understand how using Oracle for your RDBMS is suddenly equated with all the things you mention.
  - bad_user 15y ago

ibejoeb 15y ago

I'm probably starting to sound like a broken record around here, but: 1. I build products on Oracle at a startup. 2. Oracle has many compelling features that really don't have first-class open source alternatives: OLAP, encryption (wire and at-rest), VPD, materialized views with query rewriting, object and document storage, monitoring and tracing, among others... 3. Oracle got more compelling since being offered--license included!--on Amazon RDS. There are a ton of responses for Microsoft; why doesn't anyone question that? Actually, I'm curious now. Is there a new incentive for SQL Server? Maybe something in BizSpark that makes it attractive?

kahawe 15y ago
Also, do not forget or underestimate the cheek-in-tongue "Nobody got fired for buying Oracle" in this case.
pyre 15y ago
We actually have our own extensions to use Perl filehandles to write directly to Oracle LOBs. I don't know if that is Oracle-specific or if it can be used elsewhere. I've never cracked open the implementation.
alextingle 15y ago
It is perplexing that Microsoft (presumably SQL-Server) has got so many votes. In my experience, absolutely nobody chooses to use it. They just have aggressive sales people who use it as a bargaining chip to elbow out Oracle and help win other business.
- deskamess 15y ago
  I started out with Oracle on AIX, then Sybase on Solaris, then Postgres 8.3 on Windows and Linux, and am currently using MS SQL Server. Postgress (8.3 on Linux) is currently used for an inventory db in house, and SQL Server is used for most apps that reside at customer premises. Sybase was better than Oracle, and Postgres was just as good as Sybase at that time. But SQL Server (version 2005 on) has stood taller than all of them in my view. Excellent management tools, stable, reliable and no performance issues for our apps. Most of our apps are write light and read heavy with thousands of users hitting the db - served off one Win 2003 server (we have a warm spare). So there is some truth to your statement about nobody choosing to use it - for us the primary motivation to not use it internally was cost. At our customer premises they picked up the tab. We have MSDN so sql server development licenses are not an issue. Have not met a Microsoft salesperson yet!

jacques_chester 15y ago

Oracle is all over the place. My daily bread-and-butter relies on Oracle. For some thing it is, as I like to say, more 1980s than Top Gun crossed with Duran Duran -- still no SQL boolean type after 30 years! -- but for other things it has no peer except DB2, Sybase and SQL Server.

ww520 15y ago

Oracle Express actually has a free license. The Express version has most of the same functions as the expensive versions except the 5GB limit on database size. If your app doesn't require lots of data but needs all the SQL power, it's a good choice.