7 ms·

I don't see any enterprise customer using this. MS SQL server is relatively cheap. Now if this thing can work for Oracle or IBM DB2 , then may be it will be wor

I don't see any enterprise customer using this. MS SQL server is relatively cheap. Now if this thing can work for Oracle or IBM DB2 , then may be it will be worth the risk.

Conan_Kudo 5y ago
PostgreSQL already supports Oracle DB dialect and protocol, I thought?
- setr 5y ago
  postgres takes a lot of design inspiration from Oracle, but AFAIK has never made any real attempt at being strictly compatible with it. You might be thinking of dblink in oracle's world, and foreign data wrapper (fdw) in postgres, which at least lets you transparently interact between the two for just DQL. DDL, procedural logic, etc definitely differs.
  - jabl 5y ago
    There's also EnterpriseDB, a commercial version of PostgreSQL that has added support for the Oracle SQL dialect, including the stored proc language (pl/SQL or whatever it's called). I don't think it speaks the Oracle wire protocol though.
    - eb0la 5y ago
      No, it doesn't speak the Oracle wire protocol. But the Oracle pl/slq (source code compatibility) from Postgres was ported to DB2 and IBM claims 100% compatibility.
mrweasel 5y ago
Those customers also know how to manage SQL Server, and the software running on won’t support Postgresql with Babelfish, in the sense that any support contract goes right out the window. I think this is mostly for companies that run Postgresql, but need to bring in a single application which only supports SQL Server. I wonder if you can make SQL Management Studio run against Babelfish.
ahachete 5y ago
> MS SQL server is relatively cheap At $14K/core [0] for the Enterprise edition, it doesn't fit exactly on my definition of cheap. Sure, it's 1/4th of Oracle's price, but still translates to 6-7 figures for even small deployments, which again is not cheap to me. But I guess the main attractiveness for current SQL Server uses might be more on the licensing terms/compliance problems than the cost. Just trying to understand how to license SQL Server and how cores are counted already requires you to read a 42-page guide [1]. The risks associated from incorrectly purchasing licenses for your SQL Server cluster(s) may be a compelling reason to jump into open source with minimal migration costs (at least compared to migrating directly to Postgres or any other open source database). [0]: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/sql-server/sql-server-2019-pricing https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/sql-server/sql-server-2019-p... [1]: https://download.microsoft.com/download/e/2/9/e29a9331-965d-4faa-bd2e-7c1db7cd8348/SQL_Server_2019_Licensing_guide.pdf https://download.microsoft.com/download/e/2/9/e29a9331-965d-...
- tomnipotent 5y ago
  I can get on the phone with a sales rep and get a custom quote in a few hours, without having to read a thing. And it'll probably be at least 30-50% (or more) discounted from whatever is listed. Microsoft has operated this way for decades. It's cost has also never once come up in a budget review meeting.
  - bigbizisverywyz 5y ago
    That's largely because alternatives like Postgres exist. If they didn't then I'm pretty sure the the conversation would be more along the lines of "take it or leave it." People shouldn't underestimate the commoditization of databases that has occurred since MySQL and Postgres became acceptable alternatives.
    - tomnipotent 5y ago
      Has nothing at all to do with Postgres, or underestimating anything. Microsoft has a very large, robust partner network that's able get great pricing and the cost of MSSQL really hasn't changed much over the years outside multi-core updates.
cies 5y ago
> I don't see any enterprise customer using this Same was said for Lyenuks (Linux), Apache, etc.

I don't see any enterprise customer using this. MS SQL server is relatively cheap. Now if this thing can work for Oracle or IBM DB2 , then may be it will be worth the risk.

Conan_Kudo 5y ago

PostgreSQL already supports Oracle DB dialect and protocol, I thought?

setr 5y ago
postgres takes a lot of design inspiration from Oracle, but AFAIK has never made any real attempt at being strictly compatible with it. You might be thinking of dblink in oracle's world, and foreign data wrapper (fdw) in postgres, which at least lets you transparently interact between the two for just DQL. DDL, procedural logic, etc definitely differs.
- jabl 5y ago
  There's also EnterpriseDB, a commercial version of PostgreSQL that has added support for the Oracle SQL dialect, including the stored proc language (pl/SQL or whatever it's called). I don't think it speaks the Oracle wire protocol though.
  - eb0la 5y ago
    No, it doesn't speak the Oracle wire protocol. But the Oracle pl/slq (source code compatibility) from Postgres was ported to DB2 and IBM claims 100% compatibility.

mrweasel 5y ago

Those customers also know how to manage SQL Server, and the software running on won’t support Postgresql with Babelfish, in the sense that any support contract goes right out the window. I think this is mostly for companies that run Postgresql, but need to bring in a single application which only supports SQL Server. I wonder if you can make SQL Management Studio run against Babelfish.

ahachete 5y ago

> MS SQL server is relatively cheap At $14K/core [0] for the Enterprise edition, it doesn't fit exactly on my definition of cheap. Sure, it's 1/4th of Oracle's price, but still translates to 6-7 figures for even small deployments, which again is not cheap to me. But I guess the main attractiveness for current SQL Server uses might be more on the licensing terms/compliance problems than the cost. Just trying to understand how to license SQL Server and how cores are counted already requires you to read a 42-page guide [1]. The risks associated from incorrectly purchasing licenses for your SQL Server cluster(s) may be a compelling reason to jump into open source with minimal migration costs (at least compared to migrating directly to Postgres or any other open source database). [0]: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/sql-server/sql-server-2019-pricing https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/sql-server/sql-server-2019-p... [1]: https://download.microsoft.com/download/e/2/9/e29a9331-965d-4faa-bd2e-7c1db7cd8348/SQL_Server_2019_Licensing_guide.pdf https://download.microsoft.com/download/e/2/9/e29a9331-965d-...

tomnipotent 5y ago
I can get on the phone with a sales rep and get a custom quote in a few hours, without having to read a thing. And it'll probably be at least 30-50% (or more) discounted from whatever is listed. Microsoft has operated this way for decades. It's cost has also never once come up in a budget review meeting.
- bigbizisverywyz 5y ago
  That's largely because alternatives like Postgres exist. If they didn't then I'm pretty sure the the conversation would be more along the lines of "take it or leave it." People shouldn't underestimate the commoditization of databases that has occurred since MySQL and Postgres became acceptable alternatives.
  - tomnipotent 5y ago
    Has nothing at all to do with Postgres, or underestimating anything. Microsoft has a very large, robust partner network that's able get great pricing and the cost of MSSQL really hasn't changed much over the years outside multi-core updates.

cies 5y ago

> I don't see any enterprise customer using this Same was said for Lyenuks (Linux), Apache, etc.