
The reason that Postgres can't kill Oracle, it's not the technology - craigkerstiens
https://www.techrepublic.com/article/theres-one-big-reason-that-postgres-cant-kill-oracle-and-its-not-the-technology/
======
marpstar
Are there any known instances of a company dropping support for Oracle? My
employer supported both Oracle and MSSQL for our now-legacy desktop offering
but opted to support MSSQL-only when we rewrote for the cloud. Our testing and
operations effort was reduced significantly and on-premise customers have
dealt with those implications but I’d say it’s definitely a net positive for
us.

Not saying that MSSQL is any better than Oracle, or Postgres for that matter.

~~~
X86BSD
Yandex did. Russia’s version of google. If you YouTube search “yandex
postgresql” you will find them giving a talk about the wins for them in
switching.

------
prepend
I’ve been waiting for Oracle to slowly die for 20 years. But they kee growing.
Enterprise, once gained, is really hard to lose. Novell is still in business,
as one example.

The article touches on this, but it’s a factor of new companies eventually
growing up without needing Oracle. That could take 50 years.

~~~
tabtab
Databases often house an organization's key data and related business logic.
It's not trivial to port such over. PostgreSql is not 100% compatible, and
testing and adjusting takes time.

That being said, an org should foster open-source RDBMS for _new_ projects
that don't need heavy data-sharing with Oracle instances, and slowly expand.
For one, Oracle sales-people will give you better deals if they know you are
nurturing alternatives within. It's better if Oracle has you by one nut
instead of two.

------
bythckr
I was once told by an IT manager of a supermarket chain, that no db was able
to handle the high-volume of transaction they had during the peak hours. It
was anecdotal without any hard proof and he did not want to get to the details
as it will reveal their inner workings. They have 50 branches with each store
having 30 counters.

Any truth to that?

~~~
justinclift
Without specific details it sounds pretty unlikely.

Maybe they were meaning within some (unknown to us) budget? That'd make more
sense.

