Oracle Database In-Memory Reviews

We use the solution for analytical purposes because it makes it faster to analyze processes. In-Memory also helps with reporting. My first project using the solution was for the government, and we deployed the solution on the cloud.

I like Oracle because it is a backward-compatible solution. When I changed from an In-Memory database to a non-In-Memory database, all I had to do was configure and restart. I did not have to change the coding at all. But it takes a bit more time to transform from non-In-Memory into In-Memory when using a MySQL server.

It would be good if Oracle could reduce downtime when transferring from non-In-Memory to In-Memory.

I've used Oracle Database In-Memory since 2019.

I rate Database In-Memory's stability an eight out of ten.

In-Memory's scalability is okay because it's focused on big databases. Scalability is a focus when used on a NoSQL database. When we use In-Memory in the Oracle database, which is an MDBMS, scalability is not a concern. The solution is only for enterprise-level customers.

I don't like tech support from Oracle. I've been with Oracle since 1992, and I've seen the quality of support decrease.

The initial setup is very simple, and that's why I like it. It's fairly transparent. There is nothing to change about the coding. The customer may not even realize an engine exists in the database except during downtime.

I rate the pricing a zero out of ten because Database In-Memory is too costly.

The best competitor for Oracle is Microsoft. But Microsoft is much harder than Oracle to scale.

After accessing the In-Memory database, we usually have some downtime. That's acceptable to me, but if they can eliminate that, it would be good. The downtime is needed now to change the allocated memory in Oracle. If you use a data block, the downtime lasts minutes.

Oracle provides Exadata for customers, and that's very good because usually another cloud is not provided to them.

I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

When I compare solutions like In-Memory to FOSS 3.0, FOSS 3.0 has more features. But if you add all those features to one person, they are incompatible. Compatibility is an important thing, but many people just skip it.

Our company uses the solution to create relational databases. We use both public and private clouds. 

The solution has a simplicity that makes it very easy to use. 

The scalability is very good. 

The solution should move to the new way of writing software code with AI that is intelligent and learns. 

I have been using the solution for 15 years. 

The solution is very scalable and that is the feature we like most. 

I rate scalability a nine out of ten. 

The technical support could be improved. I don't recall specifics, but know that I expect more from them. 

Sometimes, support doesn't understand the environment of a business so they give irrelevant solutions. That is the biggest problem with support. 

I rate support a seven out of ten. 

Neutral

The setup is pretty straightforward and easy so I rate setup a nine out of ten. 

We implemented the solution in-house and it did not take long to deploy. 

The pricing is pretty good so I rate it an eight out of ten. 

Before choosing the solution, evaluate the on-premises, public, and private cloud environments. Speak with a representative about what environment best meets your needs.

In the public cloud arena, Azure and AWS also offer good products that compete with the solution.

I rate the solution a seven because there are better public cloud options. 

We use the solution for improving database reporting that previously took long hours.

The solution's most valuable feature is its ability to manage database memory using various methods.

They should improve the solution's scalability for large databases. Also, they should frequently update the on-premises version.

We have been using the solution for two years.

The solution is highly stable. I rate its stability as a nine.

It is a scalable solution. We have 2,000 customers and 35,000 end users of the solution. Also, we plan to increase the number of users.

The solution's technical support team is responsive. But it could respond faster to complex issues.

The solution's initial setup process is fast and easy. It takes less than an hour to complete. However, implementing and testing it in a different environment takes more time.

The solution requires four executives for deployment and maintenance. We test the solution's new version in a lower environment for deployment. Later, we release it in our production environment.

The solution's ROI is excellent.

I recommend the solution to others and rate it as a nine.

We work as consultants, so we provide the solution to customers. It's deployed on-premises.

We write the queries using SQL Developer, and we do the synchronization.

We're using Oracle 10g and 11g.

The query optimization and backup features should be added.

I've been using this solution for more than eight years.

The on-premise version is stable. We have different teams and resources for the server side, for admin, and for development. We can easily take care of all the services and applications.

We do maintenance frequently. Every weekend, the admin team has to do some patches and some upgrade activity on the servers. So, maintenance is needed to stay up-to-date.

Since we aren't using this as a SaaS, if we move to cloud, we can go for scalability easily. The on-premise solution is scalable. It's also good for cost reduction. If the client is looking for some cost reduction, it is not possible with the on-premise version, so it's better to go for SaaS or cloud.

There are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees.

I would rate this solution 8 out of 10.

For someone with small architecture and a small volume of data, they can go for the cloud services. If they have a huge volume or some security perspective like BFSI data and a banking system, they should definitely go for the on-premise solution.

If we go for any BFSI or some banking or card solution, we can easily see that most of the companies are working with the on-premise solution only. They aren't considering the cloud solution to be secure. In terms of security, they are going for the on-premise version because everything is in their hands only.

We stream and exchange data with multiple partners and vendors using the product.

Oracle Database In-Memory has a valuable transaction feature. It efficiently handles low-code data and supports read-and-write operations for clustering.

The product could be more economical. It is much on the higher side than other databases. Additionally, they should include OLTP functionality.

We have been using Oracle Database In-Memory for ten years.

It is a stable platform. I rate its stability a ten out of ten.

There were 5000 Oracle Database In-Memory users in my previous company. I rate the product's scalability a ten out of ten.

The technical support services are good.

Positive

The initial setup is easier for the cloud version. I rate the process a ten out of ten.

The product is expensive. However, it provides quality features. There is room for improvement, considering other options. I rate the pricing a ten out of ten.

We evaluated different providers. We went to Oracle Database In-Memory for better transaction size and volume.

I rate Oracle Database In-Memory a ten out of ten.

We use the tool for real-time data transfer for risk management purposes. In a trading system, conversions happen fast. We use the product to handle fast transactions with low latency. 

I would like Oracle Database In-Memory to include a data replication feature. 

I have been working with the solution since 2005. 

Oracle Database In-Memory is very stable. 

I would rate the product's scalability a nine out of ten. 

Oracle Database In-Memory's setup takes six months to complete. You need 10-15 resources to handle the deployment of the whole system. 

Oracle Database In-Memory is expensive. 

I would rate the solution a ten out of ten. If you do not have high-frequency transactions, then Oracle Database In-Memory is not for you. You would require Oracle Database In-Memory for mission critical high-frequency transactions. 

I mainly use this solution for business analytics and intelligence.

The most valuable feature is that Database In-Memory is more consistent and faster than traditional databases as it requires fewer CPUs to process instructions. Another valuable feature is that we can zero data loss with this solution because there is no data loss when there is a loss of power or the RAM crashes, as with traditional databases.

In the next release, Oracle should include column store or advanced query optimization so a database can be optimized by enabling analytic queries to run faster.

I've been using Database In-Memory for two to three years.

Database In-Memory is reliable, performs very well, and requires very little maintenance.

This solution is easy to scale.

Oracle's technical support is very good.

Positive

The initial setup was simple.

We used an in-house team along with some documentation and help from Oracle's website.

Database In-Memory is priced a bit higher than its competitors like Microsoft. The Enterprise edition has no additional costs, the in-memory features come included.

I would rate Database In-Memory nine out of ten.

Our primary use case for the solution is within our on-premises environment. We do not utilize cloud services and rely on local hardware for our operations.

The solution's most valuable feature is its performance optimization within our hardware environment. This capability enhances processing speed, which is crucial for our operations, although the improvements are more hardware-dependent.

The product could benefit from enhancements in its graphical user interface.

I have been using Oracle Database In-Memory for approximately 25 to 30 years.

I rate the product stability an eight. 

I rate the product scalability an eight out of ten. 

The initial setup was relatively straightforward.

Oracle's local support team efficiently managed the deployment process, ensuring a smooth implementation.

The platform's licensing cost needs improvement. 

We selected the product due to its stability, security features, and ability to handle replication with minimal downtime.

The platform is reliable and effective within our setup. However, potential users should be aware of the high costs and evaluate whether the benefits justify the investment.