[tomnipotent]

> Especially since, in the particular use-case we're talking about here (data warehousing)

I didn't read any context of data warehousing except for the ClickHouse comment.

When comparing CH to Oracle, there's at best a 10% overlap. Within that overlap, CH is pretty amazing in what it can offer. However, for the remaining 90% Oracle kicks the shit out of CH.

CH does not have to worry about being an OLTP database and everything that entails (transactions, MVCC etc.) That means CH gets to take a LOT of shortcuts to offer what it does.

[thda]

I thought that by large datasets you meant TB of data that we see in analytics. And in this area clickhouse is growing and coming to the big companies I work for, one way or another. postgresql handles the OLTP decently enough. That leaves only niches for oracle.

[tomnipotent]

> I thought that by large datasets you meant TB

Oracle DB has no problems with TB-sized datasets, and if you have that kind of data you're probably not worried about Oracle-sized licenses.

> That leaves only niches for oracle.

Why do people keep beating this dead horse? Oracle DB is backing a non-trivial % of global GDP in a large number of Fortune 500's. It's not niche, it's just not a tool you use for hosting WordPress, Magento, and RoR apps.

[derefr]

> and if you have that kind of data you're probably not worried about Oracle-sized licenses.

We're a two-man startup selling analytics of blockchain data. We have a several-terabyte data set and basically no hosting budget. I don't think we're all that unusual. Dataset size does not imply organizational size/budget.