Oracle Database Reviews

So what happened is that today IT is facing a lot of challenges, because the data has grown so fast. They have to find a way to manage the cost, the performance, and the capacity. So that's why we have this strategy called information management: a strategy to manage this data within a reasonable cost.

Oracle 12C introduced these two new features, called ADO, Automatic Data Management, and Heat Map and combine together to implement information management in the database. We found that it is very useful to implement a tiered storage strategy. Today, we all know that SSD, (which) stands for Solid State Drives, really can help improve database performance by reducing a lot of storage IO bottlenecks. But it is not very cost-effective to put a large amount of non-active data into SSD because they  are not seriously impacting the performance, and also they tend to be in a large volume, and it can be very costly to put them in the SSD. That's why we introduced (the) tiered storage. 

The idea is we put (the) active data in the tier one storage and put (the) non-active data in the tier two or three storage. We want to use ADO and the Heat Map together, to implement this tiered storage strategy. We found that it's very useful, because these features allow the database administrator to write a policy, and then, this feature will automatically move the data around you don't have to physically copy it, and the feature will do this for you. Your only manual work is to write policies. We already implemented this in one of our tiered storage solutions. We have this one, with the PCI storage, as the tier one storage. We also have the tier two storage using the traditional spinning disk. We used this ADO and Heat Map features to manage the data around the tired storage, and it turned out to work very well.

So this is a very good tool, but I would like to add some more features. One thing I would think about is that, the database lets me write some new rules. Right now, the data moving is mainly based on how much this tier one storage is full. Like, if 80 percent of full? Then it starts moving the data. What I really want is, based on how much the data has been used. So it's possible to do that, but today, the database administrator has to manual write up the custom solution to check that. So I would like it to allow us to use plain English like, no modification in 30 days, and so instead of writing the complex PL/SQL procedure to do that this is already implemented in data compression. There is another feature for ADO that is to compress data, instead of moving data.

And it's not moving data. That condition is already implemented in the compression. But I would like to implement the same way in the data movement. Another thing is that right now, currently, when they check data, they only check data the last time the data was used, instead of frequency. So I want to have some way to go and say this data has not been used, has been used only one time, Even data was used yesterday I still want to move, but (according to today’s ADO implementation) even if they use it (data) one time, as long as in recently like yesterday, it is equal to 1000 times usage, (so the data will not be moved.) So I would like to have some way to do that (to tell the difference). 

Another feature is that this ADO, currently does not apply to multi tenant databases, which is a very important part of a database. I would like to implement that. by adding this feature, to support that (the multitenant database)

It's a very, very stable product. It's part of our 12C new features, I didn't see or feel a lot of issues, but I do recommend it because the data moving could serious impact to your database performance - so test it, before you move the production. So this comes to, not exactly how stable the product is, but how stable your rules are.
If you write the wrong rule, you move the active data to tier two storage, you will suffer your performance. And also, another thing is, when moving data, be careful because all DBAs know that, if you move data across the storage, potentially your index becomes invalidated. Then all your database query will go to the full table scan. Then you actually get a worse problem than ever.

So ADO, they tried their best to re-enable the indexes. But just be careful because in our experience, it's not 100 percent covered. So my advice is, check that. So after they move, use single query to check the index's status. If you found some index not valid, rebuild it (with) another single command, you can do that. That will ensure that you only get a good part of it, not the issue.

So the scalability has something to do with how much data you move around, so that's why you need actually scale. You need to have some idea about how much data (to move). You want to schedule a good time window, so that off your peak time, so you can you do data moving. The DBA is the one who knows this most, you need to plan ahead and test it ahead.

I would rate it, eight to nine. Because, one of the areas for improvement, for me to write a PL/SQL procedure, that can be implemented for the product. They already have this for compression. Why didn't they implement in the data movement? The writing procedure was not easy to write, yes. I would like to have that, yeah.

In my opinion, it's one of the strongest databases available in the world. It's very robust and you can do the tuning. You can tune it and customize it the way that you need it.

Its RMAN backups are really complex. I'm not a DBA, there should be a better way to perform those backups.

We have had no issues with deployment.

It's been very stable, and that's one of the best features. It very rarely has bugginess.

RAC can be simplified, basically like ASM. RAC DBAs need to really follow their processes because if one thing goes down, bringing up CRS would be a nightmare, even for a DBA who specializes in RAC. It's not a regular database and you need to learn the internals of it. Troubleshooting it is very different because it's tightly integrated with the ATC process of the Linux OS.

It would be much better if there certain values available. If those values aren't available, don't bother trying to integrate it with the OS. You should run your own shell, which is something I think would be better.

It's not that easy to migrate and you can get stuck. It depends on the level of experience, but if it's for a fresh migration, it's fairly complex. Once you get the hang of it, though, it's not that difficult.

We implemented it ourselves with our in-house team.

It's expensive, that's for sure. Because if any of the other databases are compared, Oracle Database is the only expensive product out there. Open Source products like Cassandra, MongoDB, NoSQL, those are the pretty much the same job. Oracle Database, though, might be the fastest RDBMS database we've seen. That might be the reason that it's expensive. It's also the market leader and they own a large market share.

If you are using E-Business Suite, you don't have any other option to explore another database. Depending on the nature of business, if you don't need an RDBMS, go with an open source database which would be much easier to manage and, particularly, to grow vertically instead of just horizontally.

If you remember the old Saturday Night Live skit by the baseball player, Oracle's been very, very good to me. I chose to work with databases and specifically Oracle right out of college, the 80s. It was a right career decision. It took me this far. I'll probably get to my retirement on it. That's a pretty sound technology. Had I picked some other technology to bet on, I probably would've had to go through several different learning iterations. The Oracle Database scales well. Every time there's a new version they add the features that you are wishing they would add or finding that you need. They stay ahead of the game. A lot of times you'll talk to one of their product managers and you'll say, "Well, partitioning is great, but if it only did this," and they'll say, "Oh, well if you sign an NDA, I'll tell you." Legitimately, they've already thought of it and they're developing it, and a lot of times if you get into the beta program, you can participate in the development of those features. That's really unique. It's much better than say a community preview edition like other vendors would do.

The beta program, you sign up for and you're very proactive with it and you have direct access to people who are working on the beta itself. You can help drive the product direction and that's kind of fun.

Right now, one of the things I've been using a lot of is the In-Memory column store, which is a new Oracle 12c feature and it's gotten a lot of press. It's a great feature. If you remember a few years ago, Vertica and some other column oriented databases came out and it was all the hot rage. Now, lo and behold, starting in Oracle 12, I can have column oriented data storage and it makes my memory more efficient so I can fit more In-Memory. It makes the queries faster and it makes more queries faster because of the memory being more efficient, there are more queries that can benefit from the same amount of memory. It's literally you turn on a configuration parameter and you say alter database or table and say that that table was In-Memory, and you're done. The database does everything. It's very simple to use, very powerful, and it's exactly what people were asking for a few years ago.

The same is true, I attended some of the Oracle 12c R2 sort of pre-announcement sessions and while we're not allowed to talk about what we heard, I can say for a fact that some of the stuff that they talked about was exactly the same type of things where there's a feature that was introduced late in 11 or early in 12 and you thought, "Boy, I hope this is step one and they're going to do step two and step three." They have. Now it's not public yet, but it's very reassuring to know, again, they understand the database market and well enough to develop the features just in time.

I know that a lot of people like Oracle Enterprise Manager and it's capable and it's great, but for a lot of tasks it's overkill. They came out with this new tool in 12, the OEM Express. I would like to see that tool persist. Oracle does on occasion have a bad habit of developing a tool, I'll go back to Oracle 8 on Windows, they had a really cool little GUI for developing DBA and then it was gone a version later. I'm hoping OEM Express sticks around. I'm not saying that it competes with OEM, but a lot of times, if all I'm doing is going in and adding some space to a table space or creating a user or do something simple and easy, that flash interface local on my web browser runs 100 times faster and it's easier to find stuff because there's less features in it, so you don't have to look as far.

Oracle stability's a funny thing. I know companies who do not have any database administrators. Stability in those shops is sporadic, and it should be. You need a database administrator to oversee your databases, just like you need a manager to oversee your people. It's an asset. In fact, your data's your most important asset. You sure as heck should have a specialist.

Oracle's a very powerful, robust, capable database. However, in order to be powerful, capable, and robust, it's a little complex. You need a database administrator. I'm not saying you have to hire a six figure guy, but you've got to have somebody. I know a lot of SQL server shops where they also don't work with database administrators. They can get away with it because the database isn't quite as industrial. I'm not going to build petabyte databases in SQL server but I am going to build it in Oracle. If I've got that size, it helps to have a DBA around.

You can start with the basic database, so the Oracle single instance. You can scale that pretty much to whatever size, symmetric, multi-processing processor you want to put it on. If that's not going to scale large enough for you, then you can do RAC clusters and you can build basically a little database mainframe. If you've got extra money to spend, I've got this wonderful solution called Exadata. I wish that Exadata was it, that that was the only thing Oracle had to offer. It's that far superior to the standard database, but it requires both hardware and software and there's special licensing. You can't build an Exadata at your own and just get the software. It is just standard Oracle with some hardware tricks. That's impressive, that you can make a database machine that outruns anything and it's still the standard database. They didn't have to really change it.

Rating: I would give it a nine. The only reason I don't give it a ten is because they do keep inventing and adding more stuff. The stuff that they told me yesterday and today that'll be available in the next release, let's say next year, not only is it stuff I wanted, it's stuff I didn't even dream of. I'll be excited. If I had those features today it'd be a ten, but they're on top of it.

My company is using the solution as a database warehouse. Previously, when I was a vendor, they used to work with Oracle forms. They were doing databases, and we were doing a secondary backup solution, which was backing up on the cloud.

It's quite an important part of the business. Most of the core banking servers are using Oracle Database. It's the heart of the environment. It's quite an important part of the business.

The database is a quite valuable feature.

One area where the product could improve would be to have more simplified documentation. There are things which are quite difficult to find. Also, some setup videos, like a video together with the documentation, for someone who is first implementing a solution. Watching someone else doing it would make the person more confident than just having all the notes and all the possibilities.

In addition, for the DBA, Oracle could have a series of videos. Then it would be easier for a company to buy the educational content, to become a DBA, with the videos already there, rather than looking for an online instructor than trying to get the classes. What is lacking with Oracle is the availability of education to be able to work with Oracle. Oracle is not difficult, but there is a lot that you need to know. Even if you work with only the documentation, they won't help you that much. Bringing educational content that would help the individual to be able to work in real-life situations and scenarios.

It would be better to have a compilation of videos as a pack to sell to the vendors with all the information to become DBA or to become someone who can implement an Oracle system.

I have been using the solution for three years.

It's a very stable solution, especially with the hot backup, archive logs, and everything.

In terms of scalability, the solution is pretty easy to scale up and to add things and modifications. It is pretty clear.

The technical support is very good. I've learned more with support, actually, than from the documentations.

The deployment is kind of straightforward, but there are things that are not straightforward. For example, if you are on AIX, it's a lot to do before installing.

Doing all the work manually, I believe it takes three to four people to maintain Oracle Database.

I also have Oracle Cloud Backup. It took me one week to figure out how to implement it, but that was two years ago. Now the documentation is much better.

I believe the solution is quite expensive.

My advice regarding this solution is that you need a lot of practice. It would be great if Oracle could provide a platform to practice implementations.

I would rate the solution an eight out of ten.

The solution is primarily used for any persistent storage of data. It's a database and Oracle is very strong on the relational database side. It's great for NoSQL. Oracle Database is a strong relational database management system.

The solution integrates well with third-party products. 

The high availability that it provides is definitely one of a kind. It's active-active and high availability.

The solution is stable.

The scalability is good.

They have worked to make the initial setup a bit easier. 

They have improved a lot, however, recently it has been known that Oracle Database is very complex to manage. You need skilled people to manage it these days in the industry. The databases, which are very prevalent, are very developer-friendly, and most of the tasks are automated. You don't need to have a specialized DBA to look at the database stuff. That said, the ease of management for non-technical individuals could be better. 

Technical support quality has dropped recently. They aren't as helpful or responsive as they used to be. 

I've been dealing with the solution for more than 15 years at this point. It's been a while. 

The solution is very stable. It has good high availability and is very reliable. there are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

We have found the product to be scalable. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so. It's not a problem. 

Recently, I haven't had any experience with Oracle's tech support. However, I have heard it has gone down in quality. It's harder to get in touch with them. The support requests take a lot of time to resolve. On top of that, the kind of expertise or knowledge that someone would expect from the team is a little bit of concern now. They aren't as knowledgeable as they used to be.

While the solution used to be quite complex and difficult, now they have improved it. It's easier. That said, I can say it is still on the complex side.

Generally, when you buy Oracle Database, and if you're buying it for your own data center on the on-prem side, you have to go by the processor cores and the list price is around $47,500 for the enterprise edition per core.

It is a perpetual license; it is not something that you worry about on monthly basis. That said, they do have options now for the subscription-based model, however, there are more data points to be looked at. They have an offering called the data cloud and customer which is a subscription-based model. They can give you hardware plus some software licenses as well.

When it comes to Oracle and all the licensing policy that they have is very complex, the type of audits that they do is not really something that people welcome. 

We are a customer and an end-user.

In terms of deployments, you have an option to host it purely on-prem and you can arrange it to have some workloads on the cloud as well, as a hybrid approach. It is as if you are posting your databases on a private cloud in your own data center that way.

Normally, if someone has to look at different database options available, they would prefer an open-source product. They would go with Oracle if the application they want to host is not supporting any other database but Oracle. If a company has to go with Oracle, it is best to look into the possibility of hosting it on some cloud rather than on-prem.

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten. As a solution, it is not bad. The technology is great. It provides you with the features that you need. It is just that the cost and then the type of lock-in contract that you get into is not very attractive. As a product, from features and functionality alone, I would rate it a nine out of ten. However, when it comes to cost and other things, I'd rate it lower as there are open-source database options that are very good. 

It is deployed on AWS Cloud, but it is an IaaS setup, not the PaaS one.

We are using or leveraging Oracle DB for storing the transaction related details. Along with that we are heavily relying on the CCQ and setup that Oracle provides. They were sending a notification for any changes or transactional log audit purposes that we are using.

The features that I have found most valuable are things like cluster setup and RAC One. We are using the main CQN and third party plugin support right now. We are relying on different languages support that we are getting from the Oracle side. It is one of the major areas in which Oracle excels compared to other databases.

In terms of what could be improved vis-à-vis our use cases and requirements, there is nothing. Nonetheless, we are trying to move to other companies because of the licensing cost that we're incurring on a monthly basis. Other than that we are not seeing any performance issues or require additional add-ons based on our use cases.

I have been using Oracle Database for around four years.

It requires patching that we need to do manually from our end. To use the patches released from the Oracle side requires maintenance.

We have a dedicated team of DBA's that took care of the maintenance and dispatching. There are times reserved for that purpose, and during that time whenever a business requirement is very low or there is less load on the DB, that is when we do it.

It is quite stable.

The RAC One feature that I mentioned is one of the highlights of Oracle. We're using that for scalability and management. If we're increasing we can easily plug the nodes into the DB and we can distribute the load. It's not a problem.

Right now we are creating these transaction logs from different DBs that we have in place so it's not directly any application or anyone in these dealings. ETL jobs are defined and in place so that we can extract and dump the logs into the Oracle DB.

We have a team of administrators working on it.

Our team used to do it without any kind of technical challenges. Anything which we are not able to solve from our end our DBA team used to reach out to them.

We have a separate team who is doing all the tickets and stuff.

The initial setup is a bit complex because we need to define rules and permissions for each and every user's perspective. The initial setup took us a bit to put everything in place.

We were getting help from the Oracle DBA support when we we set up Oracle. 

Right now we are paying per license to Oracle and for whatever additional features we are leveraging. For that we need to pay extra on top of the license.

There are a lot of additional costs. That is the reason we are only leveraging for transactional related purposes, so that we do not spend so much on doing the same thing on Oracle. That is the reason we are looking for open source databases now.

As I mentioned previously, as per our use cases, the features that Oracle is currently providing are more than enough. We haven't seen any new features that should be included because all the features that we need to support our business requirements are there.

Oracle is a great DB. If you very heavily rely on it for very business-critical data and certain scaling is required or heavy requirements from the technology perspective, I would say Oracle is one of the best DB's. But for that you need to pay a heavy amount for the licensing costs. Everything is included in the package, but apart from a few additional features we also need to pay extra.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give Oracle Database a 10.

We developed some products, and most of them run in Oracle because our company is an Oracle partner. In fact, we're using Oracle and SQL Server, and I have more experience with that (SQL Server). But the main core of the company is more related to Oracle.

More robust product

I like that it's a robust product. It has very good features. One good feature is Oracle RAC because, in SQL Server, we don't have that. SQL Server has something similar (SQL Server AlwaysOn), but it's not the same stuff.

It's not very user-friendly, and it's a little complex. Another issue that I don't like is the licensing complexity. It's because of the SQL Server. We have several distinct editions, and I know that if I get the Enterprise Edition, I will have all the products. But with Oracle, I can get the Enterprise Edition, but if I need some kind of encryption, I need to pay more. If I need some kind of replication, I need to pay more, and so on. Every time my team needs some of this stuff, we have to ask Oracle. So, what's the point of the license?

I have been dealing with Oracle Database for more than 20 years.

I think it's a stable product, but we had to add some special patches in the past because of bugs in the product, especially on Oracle REX. 

We always have support from Oracle.

The initial setup is more complex than SQL Server. SQL Server is very easy to set up and log in. Oracle is a little more complicated.

Oracle Database is expensive. We also need to buy additional products.

I would recommend Oracle Database to potential users. But I would tell them that it depends on their main goal. It depends on how they want to use the database. They also have to consider the costs because Oracle is more expensive. 

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Oracle Database an eight.

The primary use case of this solution is as part of our financial systems.

It is easy to set up on their engineered systems.

It needs to be more stable, as recently we have experienced some issues.

The support should be more customer-friendly.

The pricing should be reduced.

I have been using Oracle Database for a few years.

We are using the latest version.

It used to be stable and scalable, however, we have had recent stability problems on the Exadata platform.

We have the necessary number of people using the application.

We have Oracle support but we are not satisfied with it.

It needs to be responsive, and more customer-friendly.

We use different products for different requirements.

We are switching away from Oracle.

When it comes to storage, we are a large organization with many different databases. We haven't migrated between the databases, however, that is now starting to happen as we are moving off Oracle. We won't remove it completely, but we are moving away from it.

It depends on how it is being deployed. For example, if you have multiple designs and you are deploying it on their engineered systems then it's not complex. But if you are running it on a traditional hardware system then it is slightly complex.

I don't know how long it would take to deploy on the monitoring systems, but on the engineering systems, it would take two to three hours.

We did not use a consultant, vendor, or reseller to deploy this solution. We implemented the database ourselves. The engineering system is always done by Oracle, and we don't have a choice. Oracle always deploys the physical equipment.

We have a team of 12 to maintain this solution.

They are pricing themselves out of the market.

We will continue to use this solution in the future.

I wouldn't recommend Oracle Database to others who are planning to use it.

I would rate it a seven out of ten.