Coming October 25: PeerSpot Awards will be announced! Learn more
Buyer's Guide
Open Source Databases
September 2022
Get our free report covering Oracle, Firebird, EnterpriseDB, and other competitors of Oracle MySQL Cloud Service. Updated: September 2022.
634,550 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Read reviews of Oracle MySQL Cloud Service alternatives and competitors

Mainframe Technical Manager/Service Integration Lead at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Top 20
Very scalable with high availability and excellent technical support
Pros and Cons
  • "I like that its true active-active. For example, if there are two instances within a cluster, we can take one of them down and there's no failover or switch over. There's no primary and secondary, it's true active-active. We can take one side down and we can upgrade that with new maintenance or a new version, obviously testing coexistence beforehand, without impacting the business."
  • "We just want a bit more integration with Linux. That said, we are already seeing Linux more readily available on the mainframe environment."

What is our primary use case?

It's not the Db2 LUW, which is Linux, Unix, Windows. It's the mainframe. It's the active-active, high availability environment that we need for the aggressive SLAs that we've got here in Saudi Arabia.

What is most valuable?

I like that its true active-active. For example, if there are two instances within a cluster, we can take one of them down and there's no failover or switch over. There's no primary and secondary, it's true active-active. We can take one side down and we can upgrade that with new maintenance or a new version, obviously testing coexistence beforehand, without impacting the business.

In a distributed world, you've got lots of different prerequisites you've got to be managing here. Not just the database - possibly the VMs that the database is in and the OS that the database is running on, Linux or Windows, as well as the storage.

I like its high availability. It's well supported by IBM. It's used by a lot of the larger business organizations globally within banking, finance, credit cards, insurance, retail, and government.

We're proving that it's got that high availability and robustness. We can prioritize the workloads that are coming into that database management system, using the features of the IBM z/OS environment. That way, if this transaction's coming in off the network that is in and out, they will be given priority over somebody doing a lengthy query that's coming in from the network that you would consider to have more batch-like tendencies. 

We like that it's using separate specialized CPU engines to manage the locking and the sharing of data via a coupling facility. This stays on the CPU that we would be licensed for. We call them specialized engines that you don't license. They're not paying your licensing costs. Whereas, for example, in other database management environments for high availability, they communicate between themselves over an IP network. The CPU would be higher for them. There's no special process or capability that allows taking that CPU and that communication between them. It has to, if you've got four nodes of a database management system, one of them would have to lock on a row in a table or whatever, it's going to have to propagate that information to the other three nodes on the mainframe side. It would just put it into what we call a coupling facility, and the other Db2 members or instances in the same cluster would be able to check that and see that, no, we can't update that yet, we'll have to wait.

There are lots of different things we use it for. We use it for data replication, which means that we've got an always-on alternate Sysplex cluster several thousand miles away that is propagating the data to that Db2 over there using replication services at the software level rather than, if you physically replicate data and the Db2 or the Oracle environment, physically using storage replication, you've in effect got a cloned copy of that environment. It's going to fire up at the remote site, looking for the network that's at the local site. There are lots of things you would have to do there to do that. Plus the RTO time to actually get that alternate Db2 at the DR side could be 40-45 minutes depending. Whereas we can do this capability and we call it always on, where the RTO is about a minute.

What needs improvement?

The good thing is that there are improvements coming with later function levels for the z/OS Db2. I'd like it if, with the operating system that we've got, z/OS, on the mainframe, it would allow us to refresh the hardware to run Linux dockers on the mainframe. This means this might give us opportunities for different ways of coming into the Db2 environment in the future. We just want a bit more integration with Linux. That said, we are already seeing Linux more readily available on the mainframe environment.

Not only have we got the premium operating systems on OS. We can run LPARs on the same mainframe footprint that is also supporting Linux. This is what has improved and made the mainframe environment more competitive.

We're also looking at AI for Db2 as well, and machine learning for the future. We know that AI has come out, that we're going to get that, and we're going to evaluate that product next year for Db2.

That said, I haven't got any real complaints about Db2 on the mainframe. For the most part, a lot of the problems we have nowadays are to do with communication between the various teams that you would class as stakeholders.

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been working in a mainframe environment since 1991. I got involved in Db2, in the mid-nineties back in the UK. I've supported the database team regarding the system programming side of things, however, I used to be involved in it quite a lot operationally as an ops analyst lead. I've not actually worked with other database management systems on other platforms. However, some of my team support them. I occasionally have to look at these sites to understand the products and what their advantages and disadvantages are.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

Sometimes it's how you go about system management processes within the environment, and not always the product itself. If, for example, we're going to put maintenance onto the Db2, we would do that in a sandbox environment first. We would test that the Db2 that we've put the maintenance on can exist or coexist in the same cluster as the ones we haven't put the maintenance on. That's the first thing.

We would test functionally and can regress that maintenance in case we introduce a defect, or it causes an application defect. Coexistence and regression are very important in the sandbox.

After we've signed that off, we would move it into the development environment where they've got all the different development services, integration, UAT, dev-test, pre-production, model production, et cetera. We would let the development workloads test the Db2 instance there and see that that's working. If that's okay, then we upgrade the other Db2 instance in the cluster. Finally, we put it into the production environment.

Therefore, you're not going to do a big thing. You're putting your maintenance in on 50% of the database environment so that you've got ability and capacity on the other side where you haven't made that change. And you've already proved coexistence and regression, should there be a defect identified through the application.

I like the way that Db2 allows us to do that. Certain DBMS environments, you have to upgrade them all to the same level. Some of them have to be patched quite regularly due to security. However, in the mainframe, it's not too bad.

When I first came here, they were putting the maintenance and the new release, they would do it across the whole cluster. Which, if we had a problem with some of the applications that are running in there, we would have to regress that, which would probably mean an outage. There are operational or system management processes that we've tuned and we've improved so that we're mitigating against any service disruption.

The way the IBM z/OS Db2 environment's designed does allow coexistence. It does allow us to upgrade 50% of it, or 25% of it, and leave it running alongside one that's back level - as long as we've proven our coexistence.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

We've got a two-way Db2 cluster at the moment. With two members in that cluster, we could have up to 32 members in that cluster. It's got outward scalability as well.

It's got the ability to have up to 32 members within that data sharing group or that cluster. So you could run one of these on a separate Z server, Z mainframe, which would give you quite a lot of CPU capacity. I don't know whether there are any environments out there that would need or have that. Some of the world's largest banks - maybe in America or in Asia - might have a configuration like that. For us, we're across multiple processes, and we've got the ability, should we enable for cloud at a later date, to be in a position where we can just scale-out with little disruption, by just adding more LPARs with Db2 members in. We just have to make sure that we've got the processing capacity on the mainframe to support the additional workload.

How are customer service and support?

IBM technical support is pretty good. We haven't had issues with them from the operating system, from the KICKS, from the MQ, from the Db2. When I compare it to, for example, Oracle tape, we don't get the same level of support there. There's a lot of collection of log information and things like that. We have to escalate that case or that incident to the second or third level within that organization. We tend to find that IBM, on the other hand, is pretty good with that. I can't comment on other areas other than experience with Oracle, which sometimes isn't that good.

How was the initial setup?

The mainframe environment does not that often require that we have to set up another Db2. If you're creating a brand new Db2 cluster or data sharing group, then there is a bit of work in that.

The IBM manuals for this and our localized documentation assist the engineers and consultants in building a Db2. I don't consider any issues regarding a build of a Db2.

The mainframe environment from a security perspective is one of the key fundamental selling points of the mainframe environment. It is relatively secure assuming that the security people that administer the RackF database, the external security database, are actually configuring it right. Then we deploy role-based access controls. When they're doing this sort of activity database, people would have to liaise with other areas within the infrastructure and support to configure that Db2. Obviously, with any Db2 you need security permissions. They would need to discuss with the storage team how much disc space they're going to need and to discuss with the performance team and capacity team to make sure that they're going to profile that environment. They would need to discuss with the automation team to make sure that the Db2 is shut down when we need to shut the system down and that it's started up properly when the system's reloaded, or if it is in an unplanned activity, that we can restart it in light mode. Furthermore, the automation tool is monitoring that Db2 instance to make sure that it's healthy. Ultimately, there are lots of different teams that would be involved in this. 

For the most part, the setup is simple. If somebody wants a new database or schema, we could just quickly do that within that environment. If we need a brand new, separate Db2 environment, that would be more complicated, however, we have the procedures and processes in place for that.

We could have just one systems programmer doing that maintenance. That said, from my perspective, I engage a lot of the teams. Once we've put that maintenance into the development environment and we leave it for a week against one member and leave the other member back level, we would do full performance analysis to see that, with all the transactions that are running there, there's no additional CPU and there's no deterioration in response time and that the Db2 member itself is looking healthy, it's not having any resource shortages, there's no virtual memory or physical memory increases or deviations or anomalies.

We'd engage with the performance and capacity team. I recently engaged with the distributed team, for example, the middleware teams, to make sure that if anything is coming off the web through the web servers, they are aware of our change so that they can monitor and support us.

While it's one person that's doing the change, he might be working with a few junior engineers to do training. We tend to engage a lot of teams across the activity to make sure that everything looks okay and we're not impacting SLAs.

Furthermore, we have a 24 by seven operations team and they do all the operational side. You wouldn't get a Db2 systems programmer in production stopping and starting the Db2. That would be done by the operators.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

In the 90s, there was a big problem with the IBM mainframe environment and there was a big push to move the middleware off the mainframe and put it on cheaper distributed hardware. What happened then was the workload was coming in over the network. This was what we called dynamic SQL coming into Db2 - which was a bit more resource-intensive to what it was with traditional legacy style workloads that were static SQL coming into the Db2 environment, that we could see the CPU on the mainframe.

In the old days, in the 90s and before that, we were charged quite expensive amounts for licensing the software on the full capacity of the mainframe they're running on.

Now, what they introduced mid-nineties/late-nineties was these specialized processes like a coupling facility. There was a Z integrated information process called a zip. This supported workloads coming in off the network from web servers coming into Db2, and we know that these workloads are traditionally resource-intensive. They're not as efficient as static SQL. This meant that in the old days, our licensing costs would shoot up as we would have to upgrade the mainframes and it would make it more expensive.

IBM introduced these specialized processes and the zip allows the workload to be dispatched on that specialized processor. Not all of it - maybe 40% to 50% of a transaction is eligible to be dispatched on a zip. This means that we don't need as much of the standard mainframe engines to support the business workload. Anything that's running on a zip, we don't have to pay licensing fees.

This was something that made the mainframe more competitive again. Furthermore, with the mainframe we have now we can have the forerunner to virtualization (VM), which is what I started on back in the early 90s, known now as ZVM. Having ZVM means that you can run virtual machines in that OS. It acts as a hypervisor. It runs virtual machines in that OS that could be separate Linux instances.

The flagship or premium operating system on the mainframe is z/OS. It used to be called MVS, multiple virtual storage. We're going to be able to evaluate next year within Linux Dockers, in them LPARs, alongside all other tasks that we've got running such as Db2, such as KICKS. It is going to make it really interesting in the future.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We have been comparing Oracle RAC against the z/OS Db2.

I tend to see that there's a lot of bias for people, depending on, for example, if they work for an Oracle database management system. In that case, you tend to get a lot of people that are biased towards the Oracle. Likewise, you'll get that with Db2 LUW or Db2 z/OS. They don't tend to know what the other environment can do. That said, looking at it from an infrastructure and system programming background, as my background is really system programming and storage and hardware infrastructure, it's trying to get a general view on what the database management system can offer for SLAs, high availability when it's patched, and how often it would have to be patched. I want to know, for example, if there are a lot more security defects and fixes with one environment as opposed to another so that we're not interrupting our hosted business in the environment when we're doing our maintenance and new releases of software.

What other advice do I have?

I'm a partner of IBM. I used to be an IBM employee until August when I switched over to a partner company.

I'm not would say totally biased towards IBM. We do like to look at other vendors' hardware and software. For example, we use Oracle hardware on the mainframe environment for the tape. Oracle took over Sun which took over Storagetech, which is a mainframe and distributed tape solution. We do have a mixture of IBM and non-IBM software and hardware.

I'm a technical manager at the moment, and I'm supporting a team that's running Db2 across multiple sites within the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

We are moving to the private cloud, however, at the moment, it's on-premise between multiple data centers dispersed within Saudi Arabia. They don't want to be looking at any cloud services from suppliers where they do not have control of the data. We are looking at maybe next year a private cloud infrastructure for the mainframe Sysplex environment.

I'd advise new users to make sure they know what you're doing. Don't guess. There's a lot of people working out there in IT that like to tell people that they know what they're doing. From my experience, they don't know what they're doing, and they can make a complete mess of it. I see it a lot over here in the Middle East. They need to be aware of what they're doing. They need to be following proper procedures and processes.

When they're upgrading to the production environment, they should be raising a high severity ticket with the supplier. For example, if we're changing the version of Db2 in our production environment on 50%, or one member, I would inform the team to raise a high severity ticket so that we've got IBM support on hand should we encounter any anomalies. I would be saying that the same to the Microsoft SQL team, to Db2 LUW, to Oracle, that sort of thing. That would mitigate risk.

They should also properly test it. They should make sure that they follow all the functional tests, which we call IVPs, which are scripted tests that you can run to prove that it looks okay. You should be engaging with the application team in non-production first to see that they're not having any problems with the application. You should try and see if there's a performance team or monitoring team that's able to look at the performance of it. You should be talking with the middleware team, like the webserver teams, the .NET, the KICKS, and making sure that all their processes are working with that database. And then you migrate it into production.

I'd rate the solution at a ten out of ten. The product, the support of the product, the high availability that it offers, the active-active, plus how we're managing it, has been great. We're having fun with it.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Arief Gunawan - PeerSpot reviewer
Product manager at Metrodata Electronics Tbk PT
Real User
Top 5
Has a simple and user-friendly installation
Pros and Cons
  • "The one interesting thing about this product is that it is open source. It comes from an open source product. MySQL has been positioned as open source, but it also provides support."
  • "If the customer is already using or has already used Oracle for a long time they will know the look and feel and the character of this database that can fit into their business."

What is our primary use case?

We sell MySQL to customers who need to build second tier applications, not their core application. For some of our customers, when they are planning to build their second tier application, they will choose MySQL rather than Oracle which is more expensive.

What is most valuable?

The one interesting thing about this product is that it is open source. It comes from an open source product. MySQL has been positioned as open source, but it also provides support. Therefore, for a senior level product like MySQL it is different than a product like MariaDB or MongoDB which are also open source databases but they depend on the community for support. 

People just assume it is less expensive. The product is not expensive. But they also have a strong principle behind data backup and supporting that product. That's why it's quite interesting, because it's open source but it has a principle behind it.

What needs improvement?

In terms of what could be improved, some of the features that Oracle has, MySQL also has. Like if a customer is looking for a high availability solution, a security solution, a monetary solution, they can have all that in an expensive product like Oracle but they can also have it when they're using MySQL.

Every product has their own pros and cons, and also has their own market. So if the customer is already using or has already used Oracle for a long time they will know the look and feel and the character of this database that can fit into their business.

They will not choose MySQL over Oracle if they already know about Oracle. But if they start to build a new application before they are creating a secondary application then they may not be familiar with Oracle and they will try MySQL. Maybe they will like it because they will see that this database also has complete features. If they try Oracle they find the same features but different pricing. In certain things, MySQL cannot have the same benefits as Oracle but for some customers who are already using Oracle, you're not going to move to another product even if it's more expensive.

And MySQL is a cheaper product.

That's why I say that MySQL has many of the same features as Oracle. Both of them have high security.

The customer that comes from a small or medium business will prefer to choose MySQL rather than the Oracle database because they already know that this product is best for their business because it is not expensive compared to Oracle. 

Oracle does have different versions with different prices. The cheaper is called the Standard Edition. And the most expensive is the Enterprise Edition.

MySQL is comparable to the Oracle Standard Edition if we compare peer to peer. But the difference is that the Standard Edition doesn't have features like the Enterprise edition. But the high security and the high probability are not in the Standard Edition. But MySQL will have it. It will have all those kinds of features with a lower price. Because the Standard Edition is more expensive than MySQL.

Every kind of enterprise company has a core application on which their business depends. Mostly they will just choose the Oracle database. Why? Because of Oracle database's capability to handle the big workload for enterprise businesses. I think that will become their priority and MySQL will not be an option for them.

But someday I would like to see the enterprise companies changing their mindset. If you are talking about core applications related to the high workload in the future, they can choose MySQL as well. Maybe not now, because right now they still see MySQL as for small/medium business and not for the enterprise business. But I hope in the future MySQL can be seen as on the same level for their database.

That will mean that all enterprise companies can have two options when they are choosing a database solution for their core application; either Oracle database or MySQL.

For how long have I used the solution?

I'm a reseller of MySQL. I've been selling this product for one or two years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

In terms of stability I think MySQL is categorized as a stable product. We have customers who are using MySQL as its database as an online application and it's like an online store. So it means that the work is quite heavy but we are using MySQL for it. 

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

In terms of scalability, because the application is online, MySQL grows when their business grows and expands with the system. They may need to add more servers, but when they add more servers it means MySQL also expands.

MySQL has that kind of capability - when the servers grow they have some kind of clustering method or clustering concept, which makes it scalable onto several servers. So it will follow the growth of the servers to cover the business.

How are customer service and technical support?

I have been handling Oracle products for more than 10 years so I know about their kind of technical support characteristics.

For MySQL, when the customer has a problem they get their support from the Oracle portal. That means, the manual of support is online and the customer needs to register on the portal and if they have some issue or some problem using the product they need to create a ticket, and escalate or submit the ticket to the portal. Later on, they will get support from Oracle support which is worldwide.

They have their own SLA for giving support because they apply a severity level depending on how you categorize the error.

The highest severity is severity one. I think there are three or four levels. When the problem is not income to the business, you can categorize as a level three, it's a normal error. But if the error or the condition is impacting the business you can assume that is a severe one. So if you create a ticket and mark it as severe one then Oracle will directly contact Oracle support. They will contact you to help you to solve the problem within five minutes.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is categorized as a simple and user-friendly installation. It is not complex.

I have experience installing Oracle, and if you just do the default install without too many customization, you can finish it in about one or two hours. For MySQL I think it is one hour to complete the installation.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

In terms of license cost, I think the one that we are selling for MySQL is not a perpetual license like we are selling for the Oracle database.

The Oracle database license we are selling is on a perpetual basis. MySQL has that too, but for MySQL we are selling only the support.

That means that the subscription we are selling for one year consists of software support for MySQL.

That's the difference between Oracle and MySQL.

What other advice do I have?

My message to our customers out there is that you want to get a good product. A good product in terms of the cost and an effective solution. But you also need some guarantee that this product will be supported by the principle.

Because there are so many cheaper products out there but they don't have principles to support the product. They rely on the community for the troubleshooting.

So I recommend to the customers to try this product. MySQL comes from open-source so it means it's a cost-effective solution. But the important thing is this product has its own principle that is supporting this product. It means you don't have to worry as long as you have a bit of a principle behind you to cover and support you. So you can use this product with less worry because you have a principle behind you. That is my message to the customers.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give MySQL an eight.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Reseller
Head of Department at a transportation company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Top 5Leaderboard
Quite stable and flexible but not very innovative
Pros and Cons
  • "So far, we do not have a lot of issues. It's pretty problem-free."
  • "The solution really doesn't add new features very often."

What is our primary use case?

We primarily use the solution to store some customer information in our database. Basically, this customer information will be used by all the applications that are in our company.

What is most valuable?

The solution is quite stable and reliable. We use it mainly due to its general stable nature.

There's a lot of flexibility for us to create a DB schema. 

They provide some replication for us - XDR, or something like that.  

So far, we do not have a lot of issues. It's pretty problem-free. 

What needs improvement?

The solution really doesn't add new features very often. Other solutions are much more actively pushing out upgrades and improvements. Informix just isn't extremely innovative.

Something we are looking for is, for example, data reduction. We want to do masking and it doesn't give a lot of flexibility. Oracle already has something to support us and can set out a policy for the data reduction and then you just simply set up and then you can use it without any writing of functions - plus, it's easier to do masking.

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been using the solution for more than 20 years at this point. It's been two decades. I've used it for quite a long time.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

We've found the solution to be pretty stable. It doesn't crash or freeze. There are no bugs or glitches. It's been good.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The solution scales well. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so without too much difficulty.

How are customer service and technical support?

We do have a support contract with this vendor. 

From the marketing you get, IBM seems to really push that you get more from them than Oracle. They've been aggressive in selling their product to us. Oracle hasn't been as aggressive. They seldom come to us or approach us. Typically, it's our company that goes to Oracle.

IBM is much more aggressive in selling their product as opposed to Oracle. They're always checking in.

How was the initial setup?

Our team wasn't directly involved in the installation process. Therefore, it would be difficult to comment on how complex or straightforward it is.

We instructed a team to set up a database, a blank database, and then we created a schema and all of these kinds of things. While the server installation was handled by another team, the creation of the database is done by us.

What about the implementation team?

We had another team set up the solution for us.

We are professional services providers. Basically, we review some applications on the Informix DB, and then the application, and we will roll out to production. We have another team to support the second level of support. The first level of support would come from the help desk.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

We have a corporate license with IBM. We also have a global account. We have a contract of a few years with them. 

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We're currently looking at Oracle as an option to replace this solution.

With IBM, we're finding there aren't a lot of new features coming out. Oracle, in contrast, always seems to have something new. 

In terms of data security, we see some improvement in Oracle, however, we don't see a lot of new things coming from Informix. While both have data replication, in terms of bi-directional replication, both vendors are still not that good, especially when there's a very huge volume of data replication. Right now, we have to use a third-party data replication by SharePlex.

What other advice do I have?

We are using the latest version of the solution in our organization.

I was in the company for almost 20 years. Initially, we had quite a lot of databases. Basically, most of our big database was using Informix. And then, 10 years ago, we started the first migration to Oracle due to the licensing costs. On the first attempt, we changed to Oracle due to the fact that we got a very good deal from Oracle. Then, we moved one of the applications to Oracle. This year, the company direction is to go completely over to Oracle. That said, we still have one application, which until today we still use Informix for. That's why there's the intent to also migrate to Oracle, so that our company will focus on Oracle only, instead of multiple kinds of application databases.

I look at the current market trends. It seems like IBM Informix is a little bit behind compared to other big vendors like Oracle. Competitors invest a lot in new features, such as in-memory and those kinds of things. We don't see a lot from Informix. 

In general, I would rate the solution at a six out of ten. It's an okay solution, however, if a company is looking for something more innovative, there are other options on the market.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Implementer
System Architect at a university with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
Lightweight, easy to deploy, and scalable for particular projects
Pros and Cons
  • "Postgres is rock solid when deployed according to best practices as documented by the PostgreSQL community. When it's installed correctly, PostgreSQL is an enterprise-grade solution."
  • "I'd like to see better memory management. I think that that's one of the few areas that Postgres does not handle as well as MySQL does or did."

What is our primary use case?

We deploy our databases in either a local cloud or AWS. For the locally deployed database, we have our own private cloud consisting of a couple of different data centers that we partner with. For everything else, we use Oracle or Microsoft SQL. On the Microsoft SQL side, that's not usually software as a service. It's generally done as a local installation on a virtual machine. If we're doing a deployment on an AWS environment, we use the AWS Postgres database. It's slightly different than doing the installation yourself. So if you're doing the PostgreSQL installation on a Linux environment, that's usually when we're using that directly from postgresql.org. 

What is most valuable?

It's an open-source database, so we can see the code used for that database. Also, we use it because it's lightweight, easy to deploy, and scalable for particular projects, especially if we're dealing with something that requires a Docker deployment.

What needs improvement?

I'd like to see better memory management. I think that that's one of the few areas that Postgres does not handle as well as MySQL does or did. 

For how long have I used the solution?

I've used PostgreSQL off and on for different projects for probably about 20 years now.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

Postgres' stability is wholly dependent on the skill and knowledge of the administrator who deployed it. Postgres is rock solid when deployed according to best practices as documented by the PostgreSQL community. When it's installed correctly, PostgreSQL is an enterprise-grade solution. It's reliable but requires more familiarity than you would necessarily need with a database like Oracle or Microsoft SQL out of the box.

How are customer service and support?

The biggest shortcoming of Postgres and most open-source applications is support and documentation. There's usually a decent amount of technical documentation. That would be for someone that works exclusively within the database. But it would be helpful to have more documentation at the DevOps level so developers have a better idea of maintaining the database's performance without necessarily requiring a developer who specializes in that database. A lot of DevOps people are much more interested in writing their code for the databases to work. And sometimes, they end up devoting more time to database tuning than is necessary for an application developer. So documentation in that area would probably be best.

How was the initial setup?

So back in late August, the developers released PostgreSQL 14, the most feature-rich deployment to date. And they did a reasonably decent write-up about the new and unique features. What I found most interesting is that you can use a straight-up Windows installer for the PostgreSQL database. And it includes all the components of the stack you need, so you don't necessarily need to know how to install its different parts. For example, suppose you're going to install it for Solaris, BSD, or Linux. So when you're installing in those three environments, it's usually packaged and requires secondary packages. And some of these packages are version dependent, so it can get complicated pretty quickly. If you are curious about how PostgreSQL databases run, I suggest you try it out on Windows first.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We use PostgreSQL alongside Microsoft and Oracle solutions. Postgre is suitable for scaling with specific projects. But while it scales very well, Postgre doesn't have the same recovery features as some larger-scale databases. For example, you can run Oracle Databases in a couple of different ways for easy recoverability should the primary database fail. First, you've got a rack for redundancy and load distribution. Second, Oracle has a feature called Data Guard that replicates the database in case it goes down. Data Guard allows you to run a completely different copy of the database that will take our main exports and keep it up to date. So if your primary database has a software or hardware failure, you can bring up the secondary database and re-task your applications to use that database. It's not as simple to do this with Postgres. 

What other advice do I have?

I rate PostgreSQL eight out of 10. 

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

Private Cloud

If public cloud, private cloud, or hybrid cloud, which cloud provider do you use?

Other
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
JongGun Shin - PeerSpot reviewer
Oracle ACE, DBA at Goodus,inc
Real User
Top 5Leaderboard
User friendly with a good interface but very expensive
Pros and Cons
  • "The application development is very user-friendly."
  • "The pricing could be improved. It would ideal if it was more reasonable."

What is our primary use case?

We primarily use the solution as an email database.

What is most valuable?

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.

What needs improvement?

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.

For how long have I used the solution?

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

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

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

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

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.

How are customer service and technical support?

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.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

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

How was the initial setup?

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.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

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.

What other advice do I have?

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. 

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

Hybrid Cloud
Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner
Buyer's Guide
Open Source Databases
September 2022
Get our free report covering Oracle, Firebird, EnterpriseDB, and other competitors of Oracle MySQL Cloud Service. Updated: September 2022.
634,550 professionals have used our research since 2012.