What is the advantage of Oracle over other database?

What is the advantage of Oracle over other databases (e.g. Postgres) as regards the work with a large number of rows of data?
April 4th 20 at 13:02
3 answers
April 4th 20 at 13:04
Commercial support) In fact, now all the bases +- same work - here it is necessary to watch individual cases vendor-specific, so to speak. For most tasks this monster is not needed
April 4th 20 at 13:06
Your question is impossible to answer correctly. Each DBMS has its own architectural features and is essentially a platform, i.e., many useful things have already been implemented. I.e. you can compare two specific DBMS and the framework of solving specific tasks. As DBMS for the is enterprise-level, Oracle is a very good choice, because usually in such systems the load is 50: 50(50 entry\50 reading). And because of the architectural features of the Oracle(transactions and locks) to cope with such exploitation to cheer. Plus BD is still necessary to administer, to take care the safety of your data after a crash(Becherovka), cloud functions and objects to implement business logic .... in short a lot of what you need to do, and it is already implemented in Oracle. And as a bonus, Oracle more loyal to romaponti developers who think that all databases work the same way and arranged. If a lot of data and need to quickly process them, you can look towards Exadata. Learn more about the features you can read in the documentation. And everything else you need to look for a specific task. The biggest drawback is the cost.
PS.: And on a personal note, at one point in my career I worked with MS SQL and hated DBMS, just because the implementations of transactions and locks and helped me in this previous developers. MS SQL lock at the row level, but implemented in shared pool - shared pool lock is minus the speed(General pull need to block for reading or writing these locks) plus memory. And in order not to load particular server still playing but I need this logic so that the process took place in small transactions, with the commit. There were such precedents that the data departed, while the other table did not get up because of an error in the application. Then dedlock, this is a separate issue and had to resolve changes in the structure of the data that users work only with their data. In short I remember as a nightmare. But with another IP where there was a decision to take Oracle as a DBMS, through the prism of past experience, for me it was a big revelation that there will not be such hemorrhoids as with MS SQL. Of course, maybe MS SQL is now greatly changed for the better, but osadochek left me.
April 4th 20 at 13:08
Scalability to gigantic sizes and a huge number of requests. Important for large businesses.
At the same time, for small and medium businesses of the disadvantages of Oracle is much greater than the benefits. As long as any other DBMS can handle that, it is better to use this other database. Oracle as an extreme measure, as sent to war Nimitz.
Scalability to gigantic sizes and a huge number of requests.

Why is Postgre can't scale, what's the limit? - Telly_Fritsch18 commented on April 4th 20 at 13:11
@rowan, you will not be able to give a precise answer. But as Captain Obvious would say: features of the architecture of DBMS. When parallelized, the load on many servers, it can significantly increase the overhead of this parallelization. You know what is actually meant by "scalability"? In any case example.
Have the DB on one server and 100 users. Oracle conditional performance 100%, to another DBMS (well, let it be Postgres) performance even 120%.
Became 1,000 users. Bought another 9 servers. The Oracle - 99%, Postges - 99%.
Was 10,000 users. Bought another 90 servers. Oracle - 95%, Postges - 50%.
Became 100,000 users. Bought another 900 servers. Oracle - 80%, Postges - 10%.
The numbers are completely fictitious and may be quite different. - Narciso_Bogisich commented on April 4th 20 at 13:14

Find more questions by tags OracleDatabases