Oracle Database as a Service Reviews

We use Oracle DBaaS as a database to support our applications.

Oracle DBaaS performs well. It's similar to the MS Store.

Oracle DBaaS could be compatible with more platforms. 

We've been using Oracle DBaaS for one or two years. 

Oracle DBaaS is stable.

Oracle DBaaS is scalable.

We previously used Microsoft SQL Server.

Deploying Oracle DBaaS is straightforward and only takes about half an hour. I deployed it myself with some help from our database admin.

The price is a little high

I rate Oracle Database as a Service seven out of 10.

We primarily use this solution for business applications. I was working for a company and they provided software as a service. We were serving applications to our customers.

For example, we were working locally on a system using Oracle. Then another company would need access to a different application and they would come to us to supply it. As a developer, I was using this solution to develop delivery systems principally as a convenience for our customers.

It does more of what a company like ours needs because it is a product that knows the business of data and data management.

The feature that was most valuable to me in this product — it will be different for different types of users — is that I could develop all the logic inside the database itself. There were no additional integrations.

The solution would also help manage the traffic on the network.

I don't believe that any product is a perfect solution. I believe that each product has some minor disadvantage about which customers need to be able ready to work with or workaround. It may not be the fault of the product but lack of compatibility, the preferences of the user or lack of knowledge of existing features. I think these can all be the case in not maximizing what Oracle already has.

Because of my preference for and knowledge of Toad and the way I work with Oracle, I am not up to date on all of the tools included in this product. But I think if we have all of the features needed as developers already in the product, Oracle will be much better. For example, something very important for all developers that could already be available now in Oracle products is weighting the data. This is a very important technical concern for data centers.

The code that developers use is built up in some instructions, so I need to understand how each instruction is executed and how the current state of the code or data application is affecting the transactions. I found that this type of analysis was difficult in Oracle itself, so I used another product — like Toad — that would give me the ability to debug all the code instruction by instruction to really understand what is going on. It's quite an important feature. If it is available in Oracle now it is not very good or well described. This is a problem that needs a solution.

If it is already there and the vendor does not know about it or understand it, I think there is a big issue. The difference is that to get the most out of the technology, the developers really need to know about the new features and how to find and use them. This is something about Oracle that I think is not very good.

Along with that idea, I think that Oracle might do a little bit improve their interface as it is not very user-friendly and I have heard other developers say similar things. I didn't use myself because it would not help me as much or as quickly as other products to develop functions and to develop other features like reporting. I would have to learn a whole different way.

The solution has good integration with the hardware and it is a stable product.

As a transactional database, I think this is quite a scalable product in a variety of ways. 

Any time I have had the need to use the technical support, it was at least very good but mostly it was excellent.

I previously used Microsoft and if you compare Oracle to Microsoft SQL server, I believe Oracle is so much better than Microsoft SQL Server that they are not comparable. So, I obviously prefer working with the Oracle product. The reason for the difference is probably that Oracle is basically a database company and they focus on this aspect of their business. Microsoft, having many products, is not so focused on this competition with Oracle and they are more focused on Microsoft NET Frameworks and Microsoft Office. Oracle itself has many products right now, but all of them are database products. This concentration is why Oracle is number one in transactional databases.

I am not the one who would be responsible for these installations alone. I would be doing the development. As it requires a team and customizations, I think it has to be considered somewhat complex to set up if you look at the whole picture. It is not as easy as starting an executable and waiting for it to finish running.

We are a SaaS (Software as a Service) house, so we do our own installation, monitoring, and management.

We are a value add software as a service house so we are not really paying the cost of the licenses, the customer is the one who pays month-to-month. The customer is paying the money for their Oracle database in our case. We only use the product for development and testing to be able to deliver the services.

For the customer, our service becomes an advantage. So the price may seem high, but for them, it is reasonable and not so high as it could cost them much more to deploy separately. The price corresponds to the quality of the product and services they receive in return.

We use the on-premises solution because the customer has to have their own environment. In our case, for our clients, that's one of the big advantages.

A potential issue might be getting used to the Oracle interface. Personally, I didn't use the interface provided by Oracle. In that way, the interface was not a problem for me because I used to use a third-party application like Toad that maybe more people are already familiar with and I think is easy for me to use already.

We are using the same server software application. I don't know if Oracle provided database software and SQL developer or not. But for myself, I needed an application to develop the features and functions on the Oracle Database.

While I prefer and recommend Oracle, many other factors are involved in making decisions. If all the factors are the same and there are no limitations for the cost or other issues for adopting Oracle compared with other products, I think Oracle would always be a better choice.  

A lesson I learned is that you have to always verify the virtual data when you are acting as a software as a service house for the customer. Oracle is part of our winning team. It may not be the only product that we use to achieve the result.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate this product as a seven to eight depending a little on how you use it. For us, it is an eight because it is very good at what it does and we use other tools to make it do what we want it to do. We don't fight with the one product to try and make it do everything.

We primarily use the on-premises version as our country does not allow the use of the cloud. We primarily use the solution as a database. 

We like the fact that it is very reliable. It's also very available. It's easy to find Oracle resources in our part of the world, and it's easy to replicate over other data centers. 

The functionality is good. It's flexible and easy to adjust. 

It is very reliable. 

The partitioning has been very useful. We like that we can do replication and indexing. 

The solution is stable.

It can scale, however, the cloud deployment would scale more easily. 

The solution is very expensive. 

We'd like to see better support for non-structured data and in-memory load. That would help with applications we need to cache. 

I've been using the solution for over ten years now. I've used it since about 2006 or 2008.

The solution is stable. I'd rate it nine out of ten. It is reliable, and the performance is good. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

The solution is scalable. I'd rate it six out of ten. On-premises is less scalable than the cloud. 

Technical support could be better. They should have more publicly available assistance instead of having a subscription. 

Neutral

We do use a bit of PostgreSQL. 

The initial setup was complex. I'd rate the ease of setup three out of ten. You need to understand the file system, and you need to understand Oracle very well before setup. It's not like Microsoft, where there is a setup Wizard to guide you. You need very specific knowledge. 

The setup might take a day or two in terms of deployment. However, you need to put in the tables and build the applications on top of that, and that part can take several months. 

We handled the setup in-house. 

I'd rate the pricing one out of ten. It is way too expensive. We do need to pay extra for other modules, for example, for partitioning and compression. You can also pay extra for assistance. It's already too much, and then they make you pay even more. 

We did look at SQL and MongoDB since starting with the solutions. However, we did not look at anything before choosing Oracle. 

We're customers and end-users. 

We have been using Oracle ERP for some time and are moving from on-premises to the cloud. 

I'd advise users to pay attention to licensing as it can get very, very expensive. Definitely look into other databases. 

I would rate the solution seven out of ten as it is the market leader and is very stable. 

The solution’s new version, Exadata, is good for managing enterprise workloads. It is number one in terms of performance. The solution is also good with sharding concepts.

I like the solution’s performance and real application concepts.

I would like to see improvements in the license cost. The solution is subscription-based for PaaS services. You need to buy your own authorized license.

I have been working with the solution for more than 20 years.

I would rate the solution’s stability a ten out of ten since it is stable.

The solution is scalable and I would give a rating of ten out of ten for its scalability. We have more than 100 customers for the solution.

The solution’s setup is straightforward and doesn’t take more than a day to complete. The steps for the solution’s deployment include purchasing the tenancy and provisioning the database as per the license which you have purchased.

Customers need to pay extra costs for the solution based on their scope and business.

I would rate the solution a ten on ten. Anyone looking to implement the solution should be mindful of the sizing since it affects the licensing and AMC support. I would suggest customers to try the subscription-based pricing model rather than the optimized licensing one.

We are using Oracle Database as a Service for a banking system we are making that requires a good database with high performance and very high capacity. This solution is providing all of these features for us. Additionally, we are using another Oracle tool for development, called Oracle ADS, which is very compatible with the Oracle Database as a Service.

The most valuable feature of Oracle Database as a Service is the object types. The object types are not available in other databases, such as SQL and Postgres. Additionally, the security is very good.

The price of Oracle Database as a Service could be better.

I have been using Oracle Database as a Service for approximately 15 years.

Oracle Database as a Service is stable.

The scalability of Oracle Database as a Service is good.

We have more than 50 people in my company using this solution.

We have rarely used the support. However, whenever we have any issue, we can search it through the Oracle site and find a solution.

I'm working on Postgres and Advanced Postgres and we have some products on it, but I found that the performance is not the same as Oracle Database as a Service.

The initial setup of Oracle Database as a Service is straightforward.

We did the implementation of Oracle Database as a Service with our in-house team of four people. One for the application, one for the database, and two for DevOps.

I do not know firsthand about the price of Oracle Database as a Service, but it is known that Oracle solutions tend to be priced higher than competitors.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Oracle Database as a Service a nine out of ten.

Not only does it provide a mature, reliable solution for DR. It also helps if application owners need to look into data which is a couple of hours old, using Flashback Database on the standby database.

Data Guard, because it’s the best solution for Disaster Recovery.

The licensing is a nightmare. Tons of options which need to be licensed individually, and no real offering for VMware or other Hypervisors.

And my favorite option – Multitenant – should be available for some pluggable databases in all editions without any fee.

No stability issues at all.

RAC is not a real scalability solution, so instead of scaling out I prefer to scale up.

Very poor.

I have always used Oracle Database.

Back in the early 90s, set up was difficult. But now, it’s straightforward using the graphical interfaces. But there is indeed room for improvement. An 8GB download for software is far too big. Nowadays it should be possible to simply use RPM packages on Linux/Unix.

There should be a standard way to license the database in a virtual environment (e.g. VMware) and there should be a low-end version (like Standard Edition One) again.

Before starting to look for the high-end solution (Enterprise Edition) you should consider using Standard Edition Two. There is a great chance that it will be sufficient, and gaps can be filled with third-party products like Dbvisit Standby for Distaster Recovery.

Our customers use the solution as a new business tool.

They should add more integration to the solution.

I have been using the solution for 20 years.

I rate the solution's stability as a nine.

It is a scalable solution. I have 100 customers using this solution.

The solution's deployment and maintenance processes require two or three executives.

The solution's price is reasonable, but it depends upon the negotiation.

It is a good solution and has a large community. I recommend it to others and rate it as a nine.

What I found most valuable about Oracle Database as a Service is its fast transactions and materialized views.

Oracle Database as a Service is a good product but costly. The licensing costs for it should be reduced because it's expensive. The license fee for Oracle Database is more costly than my product license.

We have used Oracle Database as a Service for more than twenty years.

Oracle Database as a Service takes work to scale.

Oracle support could be better, so I'm giving it six out of ten. There was a new release, and my team requested the patch, but it took the Oracle team a long time to address the request.

Neutral

Setting up Oracle Database as a Service requires a lot of manual work, so setup-wise, it's a six out of ten.

Deploying the product takes twenty-four hours.

Pricing for Oracle Database as a Service is expensive.

My company has more than five thousand clients on Oracle Database as a Service, but it could now be less than that because of the price issue.

Thirty people maintain, monitor, and do ad hoc testing and recovery backup for Oracle Database as a Service.

If a client currently uses Oracle Database as a Service, I suggest keeping it. However, scaling it is challenging, and its pricing is costly.

In the past, Oracle Database as a Service was a nine out of ten. Nowadays, it's a five out of ten.

My company is an Oracle customer.