Programming

17553 readers

323 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

[–] JakenVeina@lemm.ee 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I think it's a fallacy to say that you can or should build an application layer that's completely DBMS agnostic. Even if you are very careful to only write SQL queries with features that are part of the official SQL standard, you're still coupled to your particular DBMS's internal implementations for query compilation, planning, optimization, etc. At enterprise scale, there's still going to be plenty of queries that suddenly perform like crap, after a DBMS swap.

In my mind, standardization for things like ODBC or Hibernate or Entity Framework or whatever else isn't meant to abstract away the underlying DBMS, it's meant to promote compatibility.

Not to mention that you're tying your own hands by locking yourself out of non-standard DBMS features, that you could be REALLY useful to you, if you have the right use-cases. JSON generation and indexing is the big one that comes to mind. Also, geospatial data tables.

For context, my professional work for the past 6 years is an Oracle/.NET/Browser application, and we are HEAVILY invested in Oracle. Most notably, we do a LOT of ETL, and that all runs exclusively in the DBMS itself, in PL/SQL procedures orchestratedbbybthe Oracle job scheduler. Attempting to do this kind of data manipulation by round-tripping it into .NET code would make things significantly worse.

So, my opinion could definitely be a result of what's been normalized for me, in my day job. But I've also had a few other collaborative side projects where I think the "don't try and abstract away the DBMS" advice holds true.