<story><title>Parallel Sequential Scan is Committed to PostgreSQL 9.6</title><url>http://rhaas.blogspot.com/2015/11/parallel-sequential-scan-is-committed.html</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>sgt</author><text>Postgres is going in one direction - for the better. And as a long time Postgres user I&amp;#x27;ve been really happy with it for years. Now with JSONB support I am even happier, as I can build powerful RDBMS + &amp;quot;NoSQL&amp;quot; apps that outperform traditional NoSQL databases.&lt;p&gt;To my disappointment several members of my team have been championing Oracle recently though - presumably because it&amp;#x27;s a safer option and can be managed by others under an SLA.&lt;p&gt;How does one argue against this? With Postgres we&amp;#x27;re not going to get SLA&amp;#x27;s because we know it very well, but with Oracle we would. It&amp;#x27;s mostly perception management IMHO, and I&amp;#x27;m mostly against it. What killer core features does Oracle have that Postgres doesn&amp;#x27;t?</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>glogla</author><text>&amp;gt; What killer core features does Oracle have that Postgres doesn&amp;#x27;t?&lt;p&gt;While I don&amp;#x27;t really like Oracle as a company, there are some features that Oracle has and postgres don&amp;#x27;t, that can be important for production deployment:&lt;p&gt;- flashback&lt;p&gt;- partitioning that&amp;#x27;s much more mature&lt;p&gt;- merge &amp;#x2F;*+ parallel&lt;p&gt;- materialized views that refresh on commit&lt;p&gt;- and oracle is quite a bit quicker - especially with badly written queries&lt;p&gt;But those (except for optimizer) are all Oracle Enterprise features which means you&amp;#x27;re paying ridiculous money per-core for enterprise edition itself, and then you&amp;#x27;re paying ridiculous money for the features one by one.&lt;p&gt;There&amp;#x27;s mostly no reason to use Oracle Standard edition instead of postgres. And I have seen Oracle XE in producion and that&amp;#x27;s just sad.&lt;p&gt;EDIT: oh and I forgot - postgres has that stupid &amp;quot;we don&amp;#x27;t want to include optimization hints in the language so we use CTEs as optimization boundary&amp;quot; policy that the developers stuck on and refuse to change, which means you have to decide between readable code and performant code. Meh.</text></comment>
<story><title>Parallel Sequential Scan is Committed to PostgreSQL 9.6</title><url>http://rhaas.blogspot.com/2015/11/parallel-sequential-scan-is-committed.html</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>sgt</author><text>Postgres is going in one direction - for the better. And as a long time Postgres user I&amp;#x27;ve been really happy with it for years. Now with JSONB support I am even happier, as I can build powerful RDBMS + &amp;quot;NoSQL&amp;quot; apps that outperform traditional NoSQL databases.&lt;p&gt;To my disappointment several members of my team have been championing Oracle recently though - presumably because it&amp;#x27;s a safer option and can be managed by others under an SLA.&lt;p&gt;How does one argue against this? With Postgres we&amp;#x27;re not going to get SLA&amp;#x27;s because we know it very well, but with Oracle we would. It&amp;#x27;s mostly perception management IMHO, and I&amp;#x27;m mostly against it. What killer core features does Oracle have that Postgres doesn&amp;#x27;t?</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>rodgerd</author><text>&amp;gt; can be managed by others under an SLA.&lt;p&gt;EnterpriseDB, Fujitsu, and others.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; presumably because it&amp;#x27;s a safer option&lt;p&gt;Spoken like people who have never dealt with Oracle licensing and compliance.  &amp;quot;Safer&amp;quot; for values of &amp;quot;well, I guess we didn&amp;#x27;t need those millions in this year&amp;#x27;s budget anyway.</text></comment>