For anybody trying to take that seriously, keep in mind that the Oracle's query planner is absolutely shit, the write performance can go to shit depending on the contents of your transactions, any advanced transaction insulation also destroys performance, and single-machine performance is completely shit, the extreme numbers are all on scalability and when compared to other (unpatched on the case of Postgres) ACID databases.

Also, it's not clear if those claims are still real, because you can only run Oracle databases if you sign a contract saying you won't compare it to other systems.

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 14 points 2 days ago (1 children)

you can only run Oracle databases if you sign a contract saying you won’t compare it to other systems

lol, now that's a policy that speaks to being confident in their product!

[–] marcos@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The usual whataboutism people reply with every time I point this is that Microsoft does the same.

What is correct, Microsoft does the same :)

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

How would you know ... unless you compared them?

Lawsuits incoming!

[–] marcos@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Well, the stuff in my post is obvious enough that you don't need to actually look for it.

My first experience with Oracle was taking out all the government services from my state because I passed a DBA a script that inserted too much data in a transaction...

[–] namingthingsiseasy@programming.dev 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Also, it’s not clear if those claims are still real, because you can only run Oracle databases if you sign a contract saying you won’t compare it to other systems.

What the hell?? That can't possibly be legal/enforceable, can it?

[–] marcos@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

No idea.

Oracle is known to throw millions into lawsuits with no fundaments at all, and I'm not aware of anybody that published a comparison involving their database recently. Those two may be related, or not, IDK.