Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Oracle vs. PostgreSQL: First Glance

rolkotech.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 201 posts

Re: Oracle vs. PostgreSQL: First Glance

#191

Post by thda »

tomnipotent wrote: post #188
derefr wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and? If you're choosing a tool to deploy for that workload , why would you deploy Oracle instead of ClickHouse? The same question goes for any other analogous workload. Why use something that's second-best at 100 different jobs (Oracle), when you could just choose the best-in-class tool for the exact job you're doing each time? Especially since, in the particular use-case we're talking about here (data warehousi…

> Especially since, in the particular use-case we're talking about here (data warehousing) I didn't read any context of data warehousing except for the ClickHouse comment. When comparing CH to Oracle, there's at best a 10% overlap. Within that overlap, CH is pretty amazing in what it can offer. However, for the remaining 90% Oracle kicks the shit out of CH. CH does not have to worry about being an OLTP database and e…

I thought that by large datasets you meant TB of data that we see in analytics. And in this area clickhouse is growing and coming to the big companies I work for, one way or another. postgresql handles the OLTP decently enough. That leaves only niches for oracle.

Re: Oracle vs. PostgreSQL: First Glance

#192

Post by derefr »

pjmlp wrote: post #186
derefr wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Postgres isn't an RDBMS "vendor." Third-party service providers are who you have relationships with. It's like Linux vs. Windows. You don't have a relationship with "Linux"; you have a relationship with RedHat or Canonical, who take responsibility for integration, support, and maintenance of their upstreams (kernel, core libraries, userland packages, etc.)

Apparently not, otherwise there wouldn't exist something like "The PostgreSQL Global Development Group". Anyone trying others to adopt their products is a vendor, regardless if they are commercial or open source. Also Linux is just a kernel, naturally it needs a vendor like RedHat or Canonical to provide an actual product. Postgres is a RDMS already out of the box.

PGDG is effectively an industry consortium of the aligned interests of corporate members—i.e., the vendors. Things don’t “happen” at the level of PGDG, any more than things happen at the level of the UN. Both organizations are there to create opportunities for consensus between members; but in both organizations, it’s the individual members that then go on to actually do things, mostly without one-another’s help.

Re: Oracle vs. PostgreSQL: First Glance

#193

Post by tomnipotent »

thda wrote: post #98
catblast wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> oracle database is dying an its niche is shrinking. This is true, but misleadingly not the whole truth. On prem RDBMS is dying and its niche shrinking (at least in this part of the cycle)... having said that, Oracle cloud offerings are doing very well. Amazon made a herculean effort, and made some headlines when they migrated most of the business off Oracle last year. That's wonderful, for Amazon. Most of Oracle's…

> Oracle RDBMS is not an inferior product to open source competitors, in most ways superior It is also in a lots of extremely critical ways inferior. The huge complexity, the huge footprint, the humongous prices are enough to justify staying far away from it.

Oracle DB is not intended for WordPress and RoR web apps. It's an entirely different beast of an offering, and if your business is in need of what it can do than by this point the "huge complexity" is nothing compared to what your organization is probably already dealing with.

When you have thousands of engineers, "complexity" is very subjective.

Re: Oracle vs. PostgreSQL: First Glance

#194

Post by tomnipotent »

thda wrote: post #191
tomnipotent wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Especially since, in the particular use-case we're talking about here (data warehousing) I didn't read any context of data warehousing except for the ClickHouse comment. When comparing CH to Oracle, there's at best a 10% overlap. Within that overlap, CH is pretty amazing in what it can offer. However, for the remaining 90% Oracle kicks the shit out of CH. CH does not have to worry about being an OLTP database and e…

I thought that by large datasets you meant TB of data that we see in analytics. And in this area clickhouse is growing and coming to the big companies I work for, one way or another. postgresql handles the OLTP decently enough. That leaves only niches for oracle.

> I thought that by large datasets you meant TB

Oracle DB has no problems with TB-sized datasets, and if you have that kind of data you're probably not worried about Oracle-sized licenses.

> That leaves only niches for oracle.

Why do people keep beating this dead horse? Oracle DB is backing a non-trivial % of global GDP in a large number of Fortune 500's. It's not niche, it's just not a tool you use for hosting WordPress, Magento, and RoR apps.

Re: Oracle vs. PostgreSQL: First Glance

#195

Post by takacsroland »

outworlder wrote: post #160
takacsroland wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fact, my company wants to spare the expenses on Oracle. This is the main reason for migrating. We'll see how it works out. You are not the first one to point out postgre's optimizer. Is it really that bad?

YMMV. That depends on your workload, how your data is structured and a million other things. I know a few shops with heavy usage that couldn't be happier. It may require handholding if you are not happy with the plans it is generating. Also the quality of the query planner results will depend a lot on how up to date the statistics are.

I see, thanks!

Re: Oracle vs. PostgreSQL: First Glance

#196

Post by anarazel »

derefr wrote: post #192
pjmlp wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently not, otherwise there wouldn't exist something like "The PostgreSQL Global Development Group". Anyone trying others to adopt their products is a vendor, regardless if they are commercial or open source. Also Linux is just a kernel, naturally it needs a vendor like RedHat or Canonical to provide an actual product. Postgres is a RDMS already out of the box.

PGDG is effectively an industry consortium of the aligned interests of corporate members—i.e., the vendors. Things don’t “happen” at the level of PGDG, any more than things happen at the level of the UN. Both organizations are there to create opportunities for consensus between members; but in both organizations, it’s the individual members that then go on to actually do things, mostly without one-another’s help.

The PGDG doesn't really exist in the form you imagine. There certainly isn't corporate members or such. It's just a descriptor for all the developers together - it's not even a well defined legal entity.

Re: Oracle vs. PostgreSQL: First Glance

#197

Post by derefr »

tomnipotent wrote: post #194
thda wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought that by large datasets you meant TB of data that we see in analytics. And in this area clickhouse is growing and coming to the big companies I work for, one way or another. postgresql handles the OLTP decently enough. That leaves only niches for oracle.

> I thought that by large datasets you meant TB Oracle DB has no problems with TB-sized datasets, and if you have that kind of data you're probably not worried about Oracle-sized licenses. > That leaves only niches for oracle. Why do people keep beating this dead horse? Oracle DB is backing a non-trivial % of global GDP in a large number of Fortune 500's. It's not niche, it's just not a tool you use for hosting WordP…

> and if you have that kind of data you're probably not worried about Oracle-sized licenses.

We're a two-man startup selling analytics of blockchain data. We have a several-terabyte data set and basically no hosting budget. I don't think we're all that unusual. Dataset size does not imply organizational size/budget.

Re: Oracle vs. PostgreSQL: First Glance

#198

Post by derefr »

anarazel wrote: post #196
derefr wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PGDG is effectively an industry consortium of the aligned interests of corporate members—i.e., the vendors. Things don’t “happen” at the level of PGDG, any more than things happen at the level of the UN. Both organizations are there to create opportunities for consensus between members; but in both organizations, it’s the individual members that then go on to actually do things, mostly without one-another’s help.

The PGDG doesn't really exist in the form you imagine. There certainly isn't corporate members or such. It's just a descriptor for all the developers together - it's not even a well defined legal entity.

Right, the members aren't the corporations; rather, the members are the developers, who happen to mostly work for the corporations that serve as vendors. That's what "corporate membership" looks like in FOSS.

E.g., in most Apache projects originally donated from a corporation, that corporation's employees usually still constitute a majority of the developers.

The corporation(s), in such cases, aren't sponsoring the project in any strict technical/legal sense. Rather, the project is steering and constraining the corporation(s) in their development efforts on their forks/extensions of the project codebase, determining through the project's core maintainership's decisions, what will be accepted/upstreamed from those corporate forks/extensions into the open core, vs. what will have to remain in those forks.

See: Redis vs. Redis Labs; CouchDB vs. Cloudant; Apache BEAM vs. Google Cloud Dataflow; etc.

Re: Oracle vs. PostgreSQL: First Glance

#199

Post by pasha_golub »

takacsroland wrote: post #147
jcadam wrote: post #2

I'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…

Thanks, based on everyone's comment it seems it is a great decision to migrate to Postgre. Cool!

Postgres or PostgreSQL... Yeah, I know :D https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/FAQ#What_is_PostgreSQL.3F_H...

Re: Oracle vs. PostgreSQL: First Glance

#200

Post by pasha_golub »

ksec wrote: post #73

Whenever I see comment making comparison between Oracle and Postgre, I cant help bug wonder why isn't it compared to Enterprise DB, which is sort of like the unofficially official Postgre for Enterprise products.

Postgres! You're not saying Orac, aren't you? :)
Post reply on HN