Oracle and PostgreSQL Debate

Mark Brunelli writes DBAs are talking about the merits of the open source PostgreSQL database management system (DBMS) as compared to Oracle - and their opinions truly run the gamut. DBAs responding to the interview said they liked the low cost and ease of use of the open source database, while others said that Oracle's rich feature cannot be ignored. Still others talked about how well the two systems play together. According to one DBA, a gateway product from Oracle would be a welcome offering."

Comments

If you need Oracle, you need it.

[Anonymous Coward]

90% of the people who use it don't need it. 100% of that 90% are/have been convinced they need it.

Re:If you need Oracle, you need it.

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

100% of that 90% are/have been convinced they need it.

Well, what's their alternative? SQL Server? You can only get by on that for so long.

The usual transition goes like this; Access->SQL Server->(Something Better)

List out the current list of products that qualify as "Something Better" than SQL Server.

Re:If you need Oracle, you need it.

[ajs]

Isn't it more complex than that? In my experience almost no one NEEDS Oracle, but in addition to having bought into the idea that they do need it, most cannot move away from it, because they've allowed their applications to become locked into proprietary features, even where open versions of those features exist.

Who Ya Gonna Call?

[Doc Ruby]

I like how I can call Oracle and get the best developers/DBAs/integrators/troubleshooters to solve my problem, and it requires only money. I like how I can look at the Postgres source code, so I don't have to call anyone to solve my problem - or I can choose who I call.

Postgres tcp/ip too difficult to configure

[zfalcon]

Goulet said that setting up a TCP/IP connection capability with PostgreSQL is hardly an intuitive process. To do it, he says, one needs to modify the postgres.conf and pg_hba.conf files manually.

Uhh...is editing a config file really that difficult a process? It's like two lines.

Re:Postgres tcp/ip too difficult to configure

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, Oracle isn't exactly point and click world. Comparing psql and sqlplus, anyone will take psql without thinking.

Re:Postgres tcp/ip too difficult to configure

[Dan Ost]

For a non-trivial application, it is very often impossible to create a configuration GUI that is as clear, capable, and useable as the text config file it is meant to replace/hide.

So what do you do? You end up making assumptions about how the app is "likely" to be used. This makes the GUI usable for people who's needs and desires match your assumptions, but you've essentially reduced the functionality of your application to match those assumptions. People whose needs don't match those assumptions now find your application to be difficult or impossible to use.

On a side note, it has been my experience that people who rely on GUIs to configure non-trivial apps never seem to have a good idea what's actually going on. They simply try something and if that doesn't work, they try something else. People who've actually invested the effort to learn how to modify the config file generally know exactly what change is required to get the desired change in behavior. Those are the people I hire. I don't want someone who is inclined to make changes without understanding their effects first.

Oh, and in the future, if you're going to call someone an elitist (or whatever), at least have the courage to use your own account.

A little of both?

[PCM2]

Why does everything have to be all or nothing? There's nothing stopping an Oracle shop from using PostgreSQL here and there. Plus you've got EnterpriseDB, which bolts Oracle compatibility onto PostgreSQL for a little bit of the best of both worlds. Go ahead and pay Oracle for the top end of what their feature set lets you do and use PostgreSQL for the rest.

The advantage of Open Source

[ksp]

To me, the important advantage of Open Source on the server side is that my data is in an Open Format - because I have the source. I can clean up corruptions or load old backups because I know exactly how the server reads the data.

Also, I can use the same database version forever. I have to get someone to patch the code to run on Vista or Windows Server 2025 or whatever in the future, but the core of the database server remains the same. Database servers just keep running on some server and are forgotten until suddenly someone makes the decision to upgrade those old NT 3.51 servers ASAP. If you run an ancient version of Oracle, you are stuffed. No support for the old version, your proprietary front end application doesn't support the Oracle versions that run on Win2003 - so what do you do? Run your business critical RDBMS at an unsupported version on NT on VMWare on Win2003? With Open Source, you can patch the layer that needs fixing, without changing the rest of the product or include the feature bloat the Oracle Sales keep getting added into their products.

Re:The advantage of Open Source

[beacher]

I really don't know where to begin on this one.

"I can clean up corruptions or load old backups because I know exactly how the server reads the data."
You need take a serious look at you backup and recovery plans. The last thing I would ever want to hear is that a DBA is using khexedit on raw database files.

"Database servers just keep running on some server and are forgotten"- Sure fire path to disaster and reinforces my first point.

"If you run an ancient version of Oracle, you are stuffed"
On a 9i to 10g migration, one of the options is to just upgrade the instance directly. Anyone that has ever done or heard of someone upgrading Windows versions will tell you that you should nuke the disk and do a clean install. In the case with Oracle this is handled through exp(ort)/imp(ort).

If your database is critical to your business, you should be taking much better care of it PERIOD. Open Source or Proprietary, it should be periodically maintained.

Replication on PG is no good

[ashpool7]

Slony I requires a primary key on all tables in order to be able to do anything. I have tables that don't have primary keys and I don't want to ever have them. I've normalized my DB and it's the best way to keep track of multiple items for a single person. OIDs are a waste of time in this situation and a cop-out. I don't want to rely on some level of replication that runs on top of the database server, I want it to be part of the database server so everything that works with the DB is aware of replication needs.

Postgres really needs some replication or mirroring mechanism built-in in order to even begin to attract people away from Oracle. The Slony II project will certainly require this level of integration, and I hope it succeeds, even it it takes until PostgeSQL 10.0.

Re:Replication on PG is no good

[Anonymous Coward]

Slony I requires a primary key on all tables in order to be able to do anything. I have tables that don't have primary keys and I don't want to ever have them.

Wow. C. J. Date, _Introduction to Database Systems_, 8th edition. Don't apply for a job with my company until you've read it and understand what is fundamentally wrong with your statement above.

Availability of Source Code? Does it Matter?

[Cranky Weasel]

"I like how I can look at the Postgres source code, so I don't have to call anyone to solve my problem - or I can choose who I call."

In discussions like this, availability of source code always comes up.

I want to know who has a job where they have so much extra time on their hands that they can debug the source code of their database product.

No, seriously. I REALLY want to know. I can't imagine things operating at a pace where this kind of thing is even an option.

The only conclusion is that people who actually do this are either (a) the top .001% of the elite programmers who can do this on the fly, (b) ex-developers from the PostgreSQL team, or (c) nerds in their basement with no time constraints because all they're doing is running their Star Trek fansites with it.

Re:Availability of Source Code? Does it Matter?

[bloodnok]

Yes, access to the source matters. Not because you want to hack it, but because you may want to put a debugger on it to track down a problem. With Oracle you don't have that option.

Instead you call Oracle support who ask a lot of questions. You answer the questions, they ask for a database dump. You spend time organising this only to be told that it's too big for them to deal with. You demand help. They ask more questions. You get nowhere.

I have been through this process many times. I have been an Oracle DBA since version 7, and a developer since version 5. I much prefer postgres. When things break, I can track down the problem myself. I probably can't fix it but I can provide useful information to those that can.

That is worth so much more to me than the ability to talk to an 'expert' at Oracle support.

Re:I'm not convinced...

[RicRoc]

I'm very happy that our company is using Oracle - it's expensive, that's why! That high expense reflects back on me, in a good way. "The software is valueable, so the people who work with it are valueable". I'm better paid because they chose Oracle over MySQL.

Another thing is the large selection of Oracle training available. The more expensive a thing is, the more training is "worth it" -- even if it is insanely expensive. When I get this training, it is because "I am worth it" -- making me worth more in the process.

And yet another thig is the high level of professionalism surrounding Oracle. Our Oracle DBA is fantastic, he really preaches the right practice, and management listens to him. Because he is an professional Oracle DBA, not some MySQL tweaker.

Personally I would use PostgreSQL, but I'm happy we are using Oracle. Who needs all the features above and beyond ACID compliance? Perversly, it's Oracles high price tag that makes it better for me - personally - at work. I'm not footing the bill, and a bigger budget translates to higher saleries in the field.

I's perverse, but that's how it is.

Re:DBA Comparisions - Oracle vs. PostgreSQL

[einhverfr]

If you were a database consulting services company, which would you recommend?

We are, and we recommend PostgreSQL. What good is it to us if our customers are paying lots of money to Oracle, Microsoft, or IBM? We can make up for a few missing features here or there for most deployments (those that don't depend on intraquery parallelism for performance) with some extra services. Customers save money, and more importantly, we make more money.

Some people are shortsighted and let their vertical compliments (like Oracle) bleed their customers dry....

Re:postgresql...ease of use?

[Anonymous Coward]

MySQL is my database of choice for small web applications that demand simplicity and speed. .. but don't really know either.

MySQL is the database of choice for people who don't understand SQL.

Re:I'm not convinced...

[Jason Earl]

Personally, I've seen expensive solutions get undercut by commodity solutions too many times to get comfortable with that line of reasoning. Heck, we've all seen how Windows and later Linux have thrown the server operating system business on its head. At some point businesses invariably start wondering why they are paying so much for Oracle and Oracle talent when their competitors are getting the same job done with PostgreSQL.