Hacker News Reader

Comment by irrational | Hacker News Reader

We've recently moved from Oracle (after using Oracle for 15 years) and we have found Postgresql's documentation to be superior to Oracle and the SQL dialect to adhere closer to the standard and to make more sense (Oracle has been around for a long time and has a lot of old and non-standard SQL built in). Overall things are simpler yet everything runs as fast or faster than it did on Oracle. Better price, better performance, better documentation, better SQL, better install process... what's not to like?

View on HN

> yet everything runs as fast or faster than it did on Oracle.

Be careful with that statement, Oracle’s license disallows users of the database from making benchmarks or any kind of performance comparisons (another reason to move to PGSQL)

EDIT: Source that refers to the ToS: https://stackoverflow.com/a/12116865

The beauty of course being that the mere existence of such a clause tells you more than enough about the performance characteristics.

Now, I'm not going to discount Oracle entirely. From what I've learned from some truly hardcore DBAs, there are certain workloads and scenarios where Oracle is still unbeatable.[ß] But outside those special cases, postgres is the rational, correct choice.

ß: For example, if you have insane performance requirements on a single system, I have been explained that oracle can be used with their own "fs" layer, which in turn runs directly on top of block device layer. Essentially, a bare-bones file system designed for nothing but their own DB usage.

I'll play devil's advocate: it's easy to benchmark, but it's hard to demonstrate that the outcome is significant, accurate, or even meaningful. And for whatever reason[0], misinformation tends to be stickier than truths. If I were Oracle, I'd get tired of dispelling bad benchmarks real fast, so much so that I'd go as far as prohibiting publishing benchmarks in the ToS, just to avoid dealing with it.

For example, APFS vs. HFS+ (filesystems are a kind of hierarchical database, so it's not that big a stretch). Multiple secondary sources, citing the the same outdated benchmark from months ago, declare that APFS is slower than HFS+. Here's one from HN[1], with some back & forth arguments and further ad-hoc measurements. Yet nobody bothered running or even mentioned fio.

Or the "ZFS will eat your data if you don't use ECC memory" meme that refuse to die.

[0] Maybe it's because in order to refute "X is bad is wrong", it's hard to not state "X is bad" first, and biased / less astute audiences tend to stop paying attention after absorbing "X is bad"[2].

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15384774

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJD1Iwy5lUY&t=46s

This is absolutely 100% insane.

Imagine if CPU makers prevented you from running PassMark.

Hell, imagine if car's manufacturer warranty was voided if you took it to a dynamometer.

Why do we as a society allow these absurd rent seeking practices like these? What possible social good could come from preventing discussion about an enterprise software product?

> Hell, imagine if car's manufacturer warranty was voided if you took it to a dynamometer.

Ferrari has the right to force you to give your car back if you do anything unauthorized with it, including any modification, or any unapproved testing. This was why Deadmau5 had to give back his Purrari (he modified the logo and theme to a nyancat theme)

This sounds like bullshit to me. If you own the car you have every right to modify it. It's your property.

I can see Ferrari not selling you any new cars because you did something they don't like, but I don't see how they have e the right to force you to give your car back (which you paid for) if you modify it.

>If you own the car you have every right to modify it. It's your property.

Some (many?) Ferrari models aren't for sale. Rather, they're indefinitely leased.

Well, because you don’t buy the car. Ferrari owns it, you buy a license to use it.

Just like with all your online services, or your software.

Ferrari owns it, you buy a license to use it.

That sounds like sort of claim that should be backed up with some pretty significant evidence.

One random google result: https://www.autotrader.com/car-news/these-are-the-insane-ter...

This is far from the first time they've done this, as subsequent google searches will attest. I'll leave this as an exercise to the reader.

It's not a license. It's a lease and the car is yours at the end of the lease period.

> The lucky few selected to get an F50 would make a down payment of $240,000. Yes, that's right: a down payment of $240,000... on a car. After that, monthly payments were $5,600. Five thousand. Six hundred. Per month. For 24 months. And then, at the end of the lease, you owned the car -- assuming you could come up with the final payment of $150,000. Total payments over the 2-year span: $534,400. Only then could you resell your F50 and make money off the wild speculation.

That's a distinction without a difference.

I also suggest the Google query.

Bullshit. Purrari was sold online.

Yeah, Ferrari sent him a cease and desist notice. He replaced it with a Nyanborghini.

Worth noting that (I'm 99% sure) you're absolutely allowed to benchmark Oracle, just not publish the results publicly. It's pretty common for DB papers to compare against postgres and a number of "mystery" databases because the authors' license agreement with Oracle prevents them from naming it.

I think the purpose is to try and prevent benchmarks being posted that are on improperly configured or optimized systems and therefore misleading, not to "hide" the performance characteristics of the database. That said, Oracle sucks and I can never imagine using their software.

I'm sure that's just a very convenient excuse.

It is, but it is also a very true one. I've seen way too many terrible benchmarks of MySQL and Postgres to remember them all, because of misconfiguration, not understanding best practices which apply to each, etc. I can see why they'd restrict them.

If they are no longer using it, would the license still apply?

Even if they are an ex-user of Oracle products, they would have had to benchmark the software at a time the were using it or have someone who is using it benchmark it. Either way a benchmark would be made at some point while an Oracle product user, which taking kuschku's word for it, is against the license agreement.

Looking at the license agreement, it doesn't prohibit running benchmarks and recording their results, so if you ask me they wouldn't be breaking the agreement at the time they were bound by it.

(Of course nobody in danger of getting involved in a court case with Oracle is going to be asking me.)

Well, it does exactly that, doesn’t it?

> You may not

[…]

> - disclose results of any program benchmark tests without our prior consent.

The point is that performing the benchmarks and disclosing the results can happen at different times.

Sure sounds like they're an ex-user of Oracle and not a user. :)

Unbelievable. Unfortunately Oracle will stick around thanks to the non-technical people in large organisations that control the money and like products they can "trust".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com