Programming

17540 readers

74 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Follow the programming.dev instance rules
Keep content related to programming in some way
If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

snowe@programming.dev

Ategon@programming.dev

MaungaHikoi

Genuine Question - have you migrated DBMS on a Production System which wouldn't have been possible with vendor lock-in on the backend? (lemmy.world)

submitted 8 months ago by aluminium@lemmy.world to c/programming@programming.dev

17 comments fedilink hide all child comments

This is something I have thought a lot recently since I recently saw a project that absolute didn't care in the slightest about this and used many vendor specific features of MS SQL all over the place which had many advantages in terms of performance optimizations.

Basically everyone always advises you to write your backend so generically with technologies like ODBC, JDBC, Hibernate, ... and never use anything vendor specific like stored procedures, vendor specific datatypes or meta queries with the argument being that you can later switch your DBMS without much hassle.

I really wonder if this actually happens in the real world with production Software or if this is just some advice that makes sense on surface level but in reality never pans out. I personally haven't seen any large piece of Software switch to a different DBMS, even if there would be long term advantages of doing so, because the risk and work to retest everything would be far too great.

The only examples I know of (like SAP) were really part of a much larger rewrite or update rather than "just" switching DBMS.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] xantoxis@lemmy.world 11 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

In almost 30 years I've never seen anyone actually switch databases underneath an existing product. I have worked at one place where generic database APIs were required because it was a product that supportedf multiple databases, but no individual customer was really expected to switch from one database to another, that's just how the product was written.

I have heard of this happening, but it's the kind of thing that happens in one of two scenarios:

Very early in a product's lifetime the developer (probably a startup) realizes the database they chose was a poor choice. Since the product doesn't even exist yet, the switching cost is low, and generic database use wouldn't have helped.
A management shakeup in a very mature product causes the team to switch databases. This is, as you observed, usually part of a major rewrite of some kind, so lots of things are going to change at once. Also--critically--this only happens with companies that have more money than sense. Management doesn't mind if it takes a long time to switch.

It won't go smoothly, at all, but nobody actually cares, so generic database use wouldn't have helped.