This is also why when Wisconsin Circuit Courts moved from “unnamed commercial database” to Postgres, Kevin Grittner couldn’t say what the previous poorly-performing software was. Although as it was gov’t I assume it would have been easy to get the data on who was being paid for licensing.
A presentation that Grittner gave a few years later suggests that it was Sybase: http://www.pgcon.org/2009/schedule/events/129.en.html
This is just bloody ridiculous! Why would any org not have a purchasing requirement that prohibits purchasing anything that has a prohibition of doing performance testing? Especially in the government settings, where things are supposed to be up to the public disclosure through Freedom Of Information Act and the like.
Can you imagine going to the restaurant where as a condition of being serviced you agreed not to write Yelp reviews?! How could Oracle not only survive, but thrive with such poor numbers, and an explicit acknowledgement from legal that they do know they probably suck against the competition?! Unbelievable!
P.S. Which cloud provider has this clause?! Asking for a friend.
Oracle probably had a better response time for the C-level exec to come to your office and grovel for forgiveness when the software breaks.
So, silly question, has anyone published actual production metrics before/after switching to/from Oracle recently?
That’s not a benchmark, right?