![]() And we're not talking about millions of rows here. The ideal architectural solution would be to sunset the views (involving unions) in favor of a better normalized database, but you do what you can when you inherit legacy. We recently attempted an upgrade to 12 to address this and take advantage of the latest RDS generations. We had some long-running queries with views and subqueries running on a down level version of PG. I would say performance is still an issue in certain cases. To the extent that I find Oracle's product offering to be truly offensive, as-in it offends me as an engineer that someone would think to hand me such a non-ideal tool in 2020 ugh. I don't think people realize just how dumb Oracle/Oracle products are when it comes to simply "building something". It also was a HUGE productivity boost to the devs. It was incredibly cost-effective to replace it with an easier-to-use DB and most were happy to invite the change + learn new tooling. In my situation it was small-to-medium sized companies doing simple logistics stuff. Oracle can be incredibly expensive or incredibly cheap. the largest DB I had to move like this was but I don't see the change in operations going well, different skillset and sysadmins Given that my blast-radius was small, I was capable of doing a "from the ground up" approach by building data migration code by hand (ie: manually ripping through records, often validating them, doing any transformations, and writing them to the new DB target). some of the nightmares I know other folks deal with here. I guess what I'm saying is my blast-radius was limited to 2-3 services vs. other situations that may have a large number of downstream dependencies. As a SWE myself, the two major Oracle to MSSQL transitions have been heavily application-specific vs. My experience is always lots of planning, refactoring the original schema, and working with SWEs directly on the code. I mean - it's a nightmare and it hurts a lot. I will never work on a project involving Oracle again (barring obscene amounts of money to assuage my frustration, of course). 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. 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.Īnd the support was useless. The licensing for Oracle was highly granular, down to the feature level. The development experience with Oracle was also awful. ![]() 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). 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. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |