Re: > Subject: Re: Detailed explanation why uber move from postgress to mysql

Well, lucky for all of us, Jonathan is familiar with Mladen and has known Tim for a very long time, so wherever Mladen’s translation went awry, Jonathan wouldn’t blame Tim for it.

I have a significant problem with these types of conversations- the “my technology is far superior to other technology” .

The reason I assume most of us entered the technical field is that we were interested in how hardware and software worked. We learned all we could learn, as we knew the more you know, the better you are. Yet here we are, promoting the idea that there isn’t a reason to really invest time into learning platforms outside of the technical arena we specialize in. We are only going to be the best we can be if we just know Oracle, which sounds strangely more like being in marketing than technology to me. Even Mladen was willing to hint at an unfounded myth that Oracle ACE’s have some kind of marketing or promotional deal with Oracle, (not really sure where his innuendo was heading, but its easy to speculate than to speak clearly with facts, choosing to simply drag Kevin’s name into the conversation.)

Why this drives the ire of most people, is what makes the best of the best in our arena isn’t just a desire to specialize. I think it’s cool when someone goes in deep and learns all that there is to learn, but if they isolate and stop there, are they really better off than someone who spends time with different technologies-ALL TECHNOLOGY? Let’s be honest- it’s kind of difficult to keep a straight face when someone puts down MSSQL, MySQL, PostgreS or other platforms, saying Oracle is so superior, (and I feel the same way when someone at the SQL Server board meeting puts down Oracle, too.) Its like saying Henry the Eighth is the proof of how superior an English King is. Have you looked at the marriages of royalty that lead to Henry from Spain, Bavaria, Prussia, France, etc.? Using this same analogy, looking at the royalty in database ancestry, to see how often features in Oracle came from MSSQL, or that if you speak to Michael Widenius, he uses the terms MySQL and MariaDB interchangeably, since he sees them really as branches of the same tree. I remember the mass exodus of DBAs from Microsoft to Oracle, (and visa-versa at other points), resulting in incredible innovations. We won’t even discuss how MSSQL came into being from Sybase. I’m familiar with how many features in each platform, came to reality because someone took the time to embrace a competitor and recognized the value in another’s vision.

I’ve been in the same situation as the (close to) original poster. I had an impressive and beautiful, Oracle hybrid environment that was, for no better words, over engineered to take in data from the web. I’d stripped down everything I could, had optimized every layer, but at the end of the day, no one cared about the redundancy built into Oracle's architecture to ensure we never lost a transaction. This system could have lost 10K transactions a day, no one would’ve cared- what they cared was that it stopped being over-whelmed, crashing and simply received data at the rate the application tier required. We ended up architecting a sharded MySQL environment, retaining only the reporting on the Oracle database. Its still in place seven years later and serves its purpose beautifully.

I love technology- doesn’t matter if I’m working on Oracle, MSSQL, MySQL or even a Raspberry Pi. When someone teases me about switching to Mac this last year, I really don’t get it. I still love some of the features on my Surface Pro 4 more, but I also think Mac makes great stuff, too. When you do this, it limits you in my eyes- it doesn’t impress me.

Kellyn

> On Dec 25, 2016, at 6:55 AM, Mladen Gogala <gogala.mladen_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/25/2016 12:43 AM, Tim Gorman wrote:

>> >> Explaining those features is the least I could do for an Oracle ACE.
>> 
>> Actually, the least you could do is explain them correctly.
>> 
>> You started off OK in describing the Oracle in-memory implementation as a column store, which is easy enough since it is.  And you should have stopped there.
>> 
>> Instead, you veered into the weeds with an odd analogy to bitmap indexes, which indicates either unfamiliarity with in-memory column stores, or with bitmap indexes, or both.  There is nothing to suggest the method, the manner, the usage, or the impact of bitmap indexes in any in-memory column store implementation.
>> 

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l