Oracle slashes 30k jobs with a cold 6 a.m. email

Re:Oracle slashes 30k jobs with a cold 6 a.m. email by prepend on Tuesday March 31, 2026 @01:39PM (#47590898)

I disagree as I was running clustered sql server 6.5 and 7 in 1998 for hundreds of concurrent users doing millions of reads per hour on NT basically commodity boxes. Replaced it with Oracle for 100x cost and lost performance.

I think even back then you were usually better off with distributed databases running mysql or postgres over Oracle. Although people liked to think a giant Oracle db was better.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Oracle slashes 30k jobs with a cold 6 a.m. email by whatisthiseven on Tuesday March 31, 2026 @01:48PM (#47591034)

For others like me who might be skeptical to hear throughput in any metric other than seconds (and is used to large numbers in hours/days being used to inflate), I think millions per hour is actually quite high for 1998.

Assume that means 5_000_000/hour. 5M/hr => 83k/min => 1400/s. That is impressive for late 90s. I was generous on what "millions per hour" meant, but even if its 2.5M/hr that would be 700/s, which is still quite good.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Oracle slashes 30k jobs with a cold 6 a.m. email by Rapzid on Tuesday March 31, 2026 @02:32PM (#47591552)

Those are big numbers especially for non-enterprise DBs in the 90s.

MySQL's big breakthrough(not specifically talking about perf) was innodb in 2010.

Just 15+ years ago Postgres had major issues with concurrency as we think about it today.

And just 10+ years ago a LOT of DB drivers weren't thread safe and had their own issues dealing with concurrency.

So nearly 30 years ago? Fuhgeddaboudit.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Oracle slashes 30k jobs with a cold 6 a.m. email by mike_hearn on Thursday April 02, 2026 @05:04AM (#47611842)

What do you mean a distributed database running mysql or postgres? Even today you can't have a distribute db running (real) Postgres, it doesn't do multi-master clustering.

[ Parent | on HN ]