Oracle Database In-Memory Reviews

We use Oracle Database In-Memory for reporting and analytics.

The platform's most valuable features are query response time, columnar storage, and data cube setup.

The platform’s pricing needs improvement.

The platform is stable. I rate the stability a nine out of ten.

We have more than 50 Oracle Database In-Memory users in our organization. While occasional usage may increase, the technical infrastructure effectively manages these fluctuations. It demonstrates negligible impact on performance, even with incremental user growth. I rate the scalability a nine out of ten.

We have received technical support for reported bugs, and the team promptly releases patches.

Earlier, we utilized the Oracle Database Appliance for data warehousing purposes. Additionally, we relied on SQL databases, particularly older versions managed by Oracle as well as the old SAP DB. However, we transitioned to Oracle Database In-Memory to address the specific needs of our environment, particularly in scenarios where we needed to report data across distributed sites efficiently.

The initial setup process is simple.

The platform provides the best performance in terms of database analytics. It efficiently serves as a data lake. We can integrate it with any data sources as well.

I recommend it to others and rate it a ten out of ten.

We are developers and integrators that produce software and solutions for our customers. We have a variety of customers in different industries and we have a local platform where we develop solutions based on Oracle or SQL Server. I'm the company CEO.

Security is the most valuable feature. 

The solution would be better if we could use modeling rather than coding, which is the only option currently available. I'd also like to see more integration with other tools. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable. 

We had some technical issues last year and we emailed the company with questions. We never received a response, unfortunately. We eventually found the solution online but never received a response from the company. We are based in Iran so maybe there are some limitations in that respect. 

As with any solution, the initial stage can be complex, but after a while, it becomes easy. Relative to other solutions, the setup is not complex. 

The solution is very expensive. 

The solution provides a good environment and it's a product we trust.

I rate this solution eight out of 10. 

We primarily use the solution as an email database.

Overall, it's a very good solution.

The application development is very user-friendly. 

The SQL is great in Oracle. If you use other databases, you often have to find another syntax and develop in other languages.

The user interface is great.

The pricing could be improved. It would ideal if it was more reasonable.

The design isn't that great. It's kind-of buggy and doesn't seem to cater to the Korean market.

There seems to be issues relating to migration. It's difficult to migrate off of it if you need to.

I've probably been using the solution for about a decade. It's been about ten years now.

The stability has caused us some issues. We've dealt with bugs in the past. It's not flawless.

The scalability is pretty decent. We've had clients that have scaled in the past, however, they didn't use Oracle to do so. That said, I believe it scales.

We don't have contract-level technical support. In the past, we've used MOS support at oracle.com. It was just for a service request. They utilize more of an open-source system and it relies on open-source technical knowledge. It would be more helpful if Oracle could directly answer our queries. However, that's just not the case.

We've found another similar solution called Ignite that we are looking at implementing.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. It's nearly always a cloud environment, which makes things fairly easy. Everything is already set up for the most part. Companies that want to utilize In-Memory just need to work with the existing cloud infrastructure.

The product is quite expensive. Organizations should be prepared for a rather high price tag. Our clients may end up moving to an open-source option to lower costs.

We're Oracle partners. We've been partners with Oracle for a long time.

Our IT department first changed from on-premises to cloud. Our clients seem to like a hybrid deployment model. Now they are considering looking for other solutions that may not be as expensive or may even be open-source.

I'm not really a database expert. My understanding is that some customers want to make a product from the portal website using the In-Memory DB. Others tend to want to migrate from an Oracle In-Memory database to another email database. It's difficult when users want to migrate off of Oracle or simply to another Oracle solution. They tend to run into a lot of issues. Personally, this solution wouldn't be my top choice, as it makes things difficult.

There are a lot of alternative email database solutions. I'd just advise other companies to take a look at the options to see which would work best for their use case.

That said, while we migrated to another solution, it's still a pretty good tool, and issues just seem to arise if you are migrating. 

Overall, I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. If the pricing was more reasonable, and the migration was easier, I'd rate it higher. 

The most valuable aspects of this solution are:

• Fast caching
• Improved database performance

They should lower the price. My customers think that it's too expensive. 

We have been using it for the last two to three years. 

It requires a lot of resources, man power, and DB power, to make it stable.

It is scalable. 

The initial setup is complex. They want to achieve what Oracle is offering. Oracle offers everything under one umbrella inn one offering. Whereas if I go for PostgreSQL I have to buy a small component separately from a third-party vendor.

I would recommend In-Memory because it is a robust and scalable RDBMS. We are able to achieve high availability.

I would rate it a nine out of ten. 

They should improve the licensing cost.

The stability of the platform is the most valuable feature. The solution can support large amounts of data once the architecture is in place.

The solution could benefit from AI improvements.

Technical support could be improved.

The usability of the solution could be better. They should make it easier in terms of system administration and for getting examples of statistics from the databases. An interface or dashboard for statistics would be better. Right now, we're using cloud controls to do that, but it's not good enough.

I've used this solution for the past five months and was an Oracle Database administrator from 2000 to 2005.

The database is very stable.

The scalability of the solution is very good. It's able to support large amounts of data.

Technical support is below our expectations currently. It could be improved.

The solution was already in place when I began to work for the company. I don't know if they previously used a different solution or not.

We have ULA agreements with commission in place with Oracle. The pricing is okay for now.

We use the on-premises deployment model in the virtualization environment.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. If technical support was better and usability was improved, I'd rate it higher. It's the best solution on the market right now, but it's more for big data. For us, it's the best solution we can get for our specific needs.

We primarily use the solution as a warehouse. In the front end we are using MicroStrategy, and we are using Oracle as a database.

The warehouse is the solution's most valuable aspect.

The solution is very fast.

I'm not sure about the improvements needed in the solution.

The solution is quite expensive.

I've been using the solution for two years.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable. Almost everyone in the company uses the solution.

The solution's technical support is good.

I did not install it myself, but the database administration team did, and they found it simple. In one day they were able to administrate the data stack file.

Our team handled the implementation.

Oracle is a costly product.

Choosing this solution was the choice of the database administrator. I didn't participate in the process, so I'm not sure what was used before of if other solutions were evaluated.

We use the on-premises deployment model.

I'd advise others to look at the solution, but to be mindful as it is costly. Whether it is right for a company or not depends on the requirements. If they have the budget, they should go for Oracle. If they do not, I'd suggest they look at something open-source like MySQL or Oracle SQL.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

My solution has a big database with terabytes of data and we use Database In-Memory for a lot of our data. Normally, we partition it and create big tables, but we can use In-Memory for data that we use every day or every hour. We put some partitions in In-Memory from some tables and we use that. It normally has good performance.

Normally, every database server uses hard disks. In-Memory has a feature, apart from its database, which is very good. When we start our server, all your data needs loading memory. We can use that. It's a very good feature. I think they added this feature in 2019. We can mount memory in the partition, create partitions in there, and create tablespace from that spot to share. It's a really good feature. We use it a lot.

We use some partitions in In-Memory. We have a very large table and a low dose. It is very expensive in data to load all of them into In-Memory. It takes up more memory slots in the server, as well as a lot of RAM. We use the last partitions on the table. We always need to create a script and make a schedule that can load the last partition In-Memory. Oracle doesn't have features to do this automatically. I would like them to allow us to load last partitions, as well as other table partitions, in In-Memory. I think a good feature would do that automatically, letting you see a table, load a large partition, and monitor loading memory. It's quite a good feature.

I have been using this version for about four months.

We have used this feature for four months and it's stable. I used to load one terabyte of data in my memory servers each time. I think it worked okay. I don't have any problem for now.

I live in Iran. Iran is sanctioned by the US government so Oracle can't provide any services to us. I study on my own. I use Oracle documentation and watch YouTube videos. I don't have any company to support us.

It is very easy to deploy. I always work in Linux, Oracle Linux. If you want to work from the GNOME GUI, it's really simple. You must state a parameter in Linux and then use their installer. Click next, next, next, then finish. It's simple. In Oracle 80 and 90, we have an installation system in a common UI. It's very simple. You must have the prerequisites and after that, install RPM in just one comment. Check your configuration and set up the database. It's simple.

Deployment in the GUI version, if you want to use that, is I think 14 to 20 minutes. In the command line, it would take 10 to 15 minutes. I can't remember exactly, but something close to that.

Oracle is the best database, but I love open-source software. Oracle always has the first original features for three or four years and we use them because they are stable and we can buy in a large scale and use it for our office. It has no problems. I think Oracle is ten out of ten.

About Oracle Database In-Memory, in particular, I would rate it as eight out of ten. It's a new feature. I think it's improved from the last version three years ago.

Oracle's new features and data are very useful for us for storing data, loading it, etc. Oracle features based on processes are good. In Oracle, we just have four functions based on data types, but in post-production, we have more than ten functions. That is very useful for us. We'll add more functions and features like index and categorization based on data type, output, and large data. That would be very useful.

We are using Oracle Database In-Memory as an indirect approach to improving response times. In mixed-workload environments, we use the In-Memory column store to support OLAP-type queries without harming the latency-critical OLTP operations the systems "earn money with". This was successful for many customers throughout 12.2 and 18c.

It helps to build successful mixed-workload environments. Thus, for smaller setups, it's enough to have one database setup, not two, and it saves one interface in between.

In recent versions, Oracle implemented storing the In-Memory column store contents in the database, to resurrect the IMCS quicker and in a repeatable way.

One very nice side-effect is the in-memory index. If this would be developed a bit more into being configurable, users could use it as a kind of in-memory partitioning. That opens a big field of possible use cases.

Very stable.

In my experience, it scales quite well. Unfortunately, decent scale-out with RAC only works in Exadata, since Oracle relies on RDMA which is only available for InfiniBand.

"It depends". If you get a good support engineer, it is a dream. 

But, most times, it is not, unfortunately.

No, since there was no other solution offering in-memory without changing the SQL syntax.

We grew into it during beta and initial releases, so I can't answer this.

We do implementations ourselves, so I can't answer this.

If you can save setting up an additional interface and a second DB server, investment should return immediately.

The setup cost is not a big factor, but the engineer should have decent experience with Oracle's In-Memory system.

License cost is a factor; the benefit has to be carefully evaluated.

We tried several ways to offload OLAP queries from the database, especially using a second DB system.

We evaluated this product throughout the beta1 and beta2 phase.

It is always worth testing or running a proof of concept to check its value.