Oracle vs. PostgreSQL: First Glance
rolkotech.blogspot.com
Oracle vs. PostgreSQL: First Glance
1–10 of 201 posts
Re: Oracle vs. PostgreSQL: First Glance
#2I've been on a project where we were forced to migrate the opposite direction: From PostgreSQL to Oracle, because the client was already paying for Oracle licenses and really, really, wanted us to use Oracle to justify the expense.
It was actually a pretty big setback. We were using PostGIS to support spatial queries (a key requirement), and Oracle Spatial was just not at the same level (both in performance and features). The development experience with Oracle was also awful. The licensing for Oracle was highly granular, down to the feature level. More than once I'd identify a feature that provided a solution to an issue through online research only to be prevented from using it due to the customer not having the requisite license for it.
And the support was useless. Oracle was so complex (by design) we resorted to contacting support a couple of times - they would send out an "engineer" who could turn any technical troubleshooting session into a sales presentation for some Oracle product or feature that would "solve" whatever the issue was.
I will never work on a project involving Oracle again (barring obscene amounts of money to assuage my frustration, of course).
Re: Oracle vs. PostgreSQL: First Glance
#3> -- By EXCLUDED.email we could refer to the "old" email value that we are updating.
Small nitpick: The excluded table contains the values proposed for insertion, not the values already present in the table (as described in [1]).
Re: Oracle vs. PostgreSQL: First Glance
#4I've been on a project where we were forced to migrate the opposite direction: From PostgreSQL to Oracle, because the client was already paying for Oracle licenses and really, really , wanted us to use Oracle to justify the expense. It was actually a pretty big setback. We were using PostGIS to support spatial queries (a key requirement), and Oracle Spatial was just not at the same level (both in performance and feat…
I really don't like Oracle from a DBA perspective but it's still often far ahead of PostgreSQL when it comes to query performance. In Postgres, the query structure can make huge differences in terms of performance and it can take a lot of tuning to find the right query to optimize performance (especially when subqueries are involved). Oracle (and SQLServer) are usually pretty good at optimizing the query exactly the right way, reducing development time by quite a bit.
Re: Oracle vs. PostgreSQL: First Glance
#5I've been on a project where we were forced to migrate the opposite direction: From PostgreSQL to Oracle, because the client was already paying for Oracle licenses and really, really , wanted us to use Oracle to justify the expense. It was actually a pretty big setback. We were using PostGIS to support spatial queries (a key requirement), and Oracle Spatial was just not at the same level (both in performance and feat…
I really don't like Oracle from a DBA perspective but it's still often far ahead of PostgreSQL when it comes to query performance. In Postgres, the query structure can make huge differences in terms of performance and it can take a lot of tuning to find the right query to optimize performance (especially when subqueries are involved). Oracle (and SQLServer) are usually pretty good at optimizing the query exactly the…
PG community has put a lot effort into performance the last few years, including JIT compilation in PG12. Is that criticism still true today?
Re: Oracle vs. PostgreSQL: First Glance
#6I've been on a project where we were forced to migrate the opposite direction: From PostgreSQL to Oracle, because the client was already paying for Oracle licenses and really, really , wanted us to use Oracle to justify the expense. It was actually a pretty big setback. We were using PostGIS to support spatial queries (a key requirement), and Oracle Spatial was just not at the same level (both in performance and feat…
I really don't like Oracle from a DBA perspective but it's still often far ahead of PostgreSQL when it comes to query performance. In Postgres, the query structure can make huge differences in terms of performance and it can take a lot of tuning to find the right query to optimize performance (especially when subqueries are involved). Oracle (and SQLServer) are usually pretty good at optimizing the query exactly the…
Specifically for geospatial queries we found Oracle Spatial to be inferior to PostGIS (which is much more widely used). Regular relational queries seemed to be no worse (admittedly, our needs in a database were somewhat modest in that regard).
Though, most of our team's expertise as far as databases went was in Postgres (including our DBA).
Re: Oracle vs. PostgreSQL: First Glance
#7Why are the table and field names in the examples between Oracle and PostgreSQL different? It makes it harder to compare the two.
Re: Oracle vs. PostgreSQL: First Glance
#8I've been on a project where we were forced to migrate the opposite direction: From PostgreSQL to Oracle, because the client was already paying for Oracle licenses and really, really , wanted us to use Oracle to justify the expense. It was actually a pretty big setback. We were using PostGIS to support spatial queries (a key requirement), and Oracle Spatial was just not at the same level (both in performance and feat…
I really don't like Oracle from a DBA perspective but it's still often far ahead of PostgreSQL when it comes to query performance. In Postgres, the query structure can make huge differences in terms of performance and it can take a lot of tuning to find the right query to optimize performance (especially when subqueries are involved). Oracle (and SQLServer) are usually pretty good at optimizing the query exactly the…
I've generally found SqlServer's query optimizer to be a hellish nightmare of broken dreams, so if Postgres' is even worse I'm giving up and going back to flat files.
Re: Oracle vs. PostgreSQL: First Glance
#9I've been on a project where we were forced to migrate the opposite direction: From PostgreSQL to Oracle, because the client was already paying for Oracle licenses and really, really , wanted us to use Oracle to justify the expense. It was actually a pretty big setback. We were using PostGIS to support spatial queries (a key requirement), and Oracle Spatial was just not at the same level (both in performance and feat…
I really don't like Oracle from a DBA perspective but it's still often far ahead of PostgreSQL when it comes to query performance. In Postgres, the query structure can make huge differences in terms of performance and it can take a lot of tuning to find the right query to optimize performance (especially when subqueries are involved). Oracle (and SQLServer) are usually pretty good at optimizing the query exactly the…
This is actually my experience with Oracle; I had a DBA to take the management pain from us, and we had the budget for the correct licenses and hardware. The query performance was phenomenal considering the absolutely crazy amount of data we threw at that thing.
That being said, I would not recommend Oracle without all of the above factors already in place. For most use cases, Oracle is more pain than it’s worth.
Re: Oracle vs. PostgreSQL: First Glance
#10I've been on a project where we were forced to migrate the opposite direction: From PostgreSQL to Oracle, because the client was already paying for Oracle licenses and really, really , wanted us to use Oracle to justify the expense. It was actually a pretty big setback. We were using PostGIS to support spatial queries (a key requirement), and Oracle Spatial was just not at the same level (both in performance and feat…
I've spent a fair amount of time at the Sofitel in Redwood Shores, and I'd often chat with Oracle "sales engineers" at the bar. A simple "so, what do you work on" question would inevitably generate an hour's worth of them explaining some convoluted acronym-heavy product with a pushy sales model, and I'd eventually be like "ok... so it's a database?".