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.
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.
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.
Especially since, in the particular use-case we're talking about here (data warehousing), the whole paradigm and all the tooling is built around the expectation of ETL pipelines copying+transforming+"cubing" data around from OLTP (or data-lake) systems to OLAP systems. "Everything being part of one solution from one vendor" doesn't make one whit of difference in that case, since the whole architecture is expected to be built around having a one-way pipeline of mutually-opaque interoperating systems, so any two pipeline stages that can manage to speak to one-another at all can't really be any "more" well-integrated than that.