The Database Debate
-
And it doesn't include SQL Server. Instead it's Oracle v PostgreSQL as users debate their merits and appropriateness for use in various systems. There's also a great debate at Slashdot as well with lots of information, and as usual, misinformation.
Personally I think there are some good comments that reflect how I feel about the two systems. They are both tools and for most of us, either can do the job. And there are different places where each have things that are more important.
There were two very interesting notes, however that made me think. The first is that one person mentioned that they liked having Oracle being high priced. The fact that the product cost more meant that their value was perceived to be greater and thus their salary was higher. That's an interesting point and it has made me wonder in the past with Oracle DBA jobs usually paying more than SQL Server jobs. I've known quite a few Oracle DBAs that I didn't think were more skilled at their job, nor was their system more important. But the fact it was Oracle for some reason made them more valuable.
The other point was one that I've been wondered about for a long time. Someone mentioned that they ran both PostgreSQL and Oracle, but when they put out an advertisement to hire someone they got very different responses. The Oracle ads received lots of responses, but the PostgreSQL got very little.
I think that's a good point. If you can't find good people to administer your system, then that is a problem. I think it's hard to find good people anyway, but moving to a new technology because of one talented individual is a mistake. It's a huge single point of failure and if they leave, the business can really suffer.
Usually a week later is when you experience corruption or a server crash.
Steve Jones
-
Interesting point re product price vs. salaries. Perhaps those recruiting see the product as more complex.
Of course, if there is a shortage in supply of PostgreSQL DBAs, then economically that will also drive the salaries up. Depends, of course, on how the shortage of DBAs affects the demand for the product in the first place.
-
Very interesting.
From an opposing perspective, the perceived price/value partly explains why some businesses have a harder time justifying return on investment for total cost of ownership of some systems. Our flagship application originally supported Oracle as well as SQL Server, but over a three year cycle the cost of supporting Oracle was significantly higher for us and our enterprise clients, and we now ship a SQL Server only solution. We only lost 1 client in the transition, and have received universally positive feedback about the focusing we undertook. I know some shops balk at SQL Server vs. Oracle (or DB2, etc.), but it is nice to see that we are reaching an age where the systems are almost interchangeable at a plumbing level (in the sense of install, etc.).
What would be interesting would be to see this kind of issue examined from the different levels of activity, such as a DBA-view, a developer-view, etc. TCO is hard to calculate unless you take into account all the variables, such as productivity for developers, maintenance cycles, etc.
Another great and thought-provoking editorial.
-
Honestly, yes one could get by with the really light stuff (free). But to roughly quote someone else, I cant put my finger on it, But Chistrian Slater says something to the effect in the movie, True Romance,
"I'd rather have a 'tool' and end up not needing it, rather than ending up needing a 'tool' and not having it."
The free stuff is for learning; The stuff you pay for, is the stuff you make a living on. For you AND your Customer(s).
-
"Usually a week later is when you experience corruption or a server crash. "
Don't forget.... Murphy's Law is not included with Oracle. You have to pay extra.
heh
jg
-
Ha, Murphy comes with all electrical products, especially computers!
-
I always found it strange that the first thing that businesses did when they bought Oracle was to go and hire a DBA. Why because it was expensive and perceived as being complicated and difficult to manage and therefore needed and expert. But when businesses get SQL Server, they get any IT person to install it and then just let it run. When it eventually fails - they bad mouth SQL Server and Microsoft for their shoddy products. In reality they should be treating all relational databases with the same respect and have trained staff to maintain them.
-
I've only started working w/ Oracle very recently. So comparing the two
is a bit more difficult. I have, however worked quite a bit w/ postgres
over the last few years w/ a 3rd party app (and had customers using the
3rd party app w/ Oracle), so here's what I understand...
Free is good, but then who's jewels hang in the balance when "things
don't work". Clearly this depends on the company's mgmt support of both
it's ppl and realism of systems, placing blame appropriately, etc. I
thought postgres did an excellent job if you are willing to accept
some of it's short comings (though I understand version 8 has fixed
some of the previous replication issues). Oracle certainly ran some
querys *much* faster (i.e. on tables w/ ~1 million rows). But then
there's that price tag... Clearly that performance vs. requirements
and cost would be analyzed and business decisions made. We did
find that Oracle did not always out perform postgres.
I also understand postgres 8 has resolved some of the necessary
vacuum issues (to recover tuples), but I haven't worked w/ that. I
would love to be able to run postgres by my current mgmt doesn't seem
to support open source thought (as many/most large corporations do
not). You can send your ppl to Oracle or SQL Server school just about
anywhere, though there are some folks that do offer posgres training,
I suspect the lack of certifications has something to do w/ it. I'm
still disappointed (but accepting) that it's ok if "software company"
comes back and says "yes, you're right, that doesnt work" and it's
accepted as ok because it's not our responsibility but it's not ok
if some open source software comes back and says the same thing.
Ok, sorry, I'll stop that rant.
Anyhow, regarding pay of your DBA...
I believe a good dba is a good dba (wacky, huh?). Being able to
research a new database's idiosyncracies is a must, but SQL is SQL
(but not PLSQL or T-SQL
). Certifications, whether Oracle, MS,Cisco, etc. will always bump up perceived value of an employee,
though I'm sure that the Oracle price tag keeps Oracle certified DBAs
a bit higher priced than others. I've seen good DBAs move between
databases w/ little trouble.
It doesn't seem like much of this is earth shattering, but someone
had to say it.
🙂
Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply