Azure Functions vs. Oracle Warehouse Builder

They're great to embed logic and code in a medium-small, cloud-native application, but they can become quite limiting for complex, enterprise applications.

Incentivized

The best place for Oracle Warehouse Builder is at the business IT level. It's not suited for business-level users. They are easy confused. One way to reduce the confusion for the developers is to set up the workspaces based on the requirements that are discovered in design sessions. Once this is complete, the implementation of Oracle Warehouse Builder can take flight and be successful.

Incentivized

• They natively integrate with many triggers from other Azure services, like Blob Storage or Event Grid, which is super handy when creating cloud-native applications on Azure (data wrangling pipelines, business process automation, data ingestion for IoT, ...)
• They natively support many common languages and frameworks, which makes them easily approachable by teams with a diverse background
• They are cheap solutions for low-usage or "seasonal" applications that exhibits a recurring usage/non-usage pattern (batch processing, montly reports, ...)

Incentivized

• Easy transformation.
• Easy implementation from Oracle to Oracle systems.
• Ease of usage and easy to learn.
• Starting component of metadata management.

Incentivized

• My biggest complaint is that they promote a development model that tightly couples the infrastructure with the app logic. This can be fine in many scenarios, but it can take some time to build the right abstractions if you want to decouple you application from this deployment model. This is true at least using .NET functions.
• In some points, they "leak" their abstraction and - from what I understood - they're actually based on the App Service/Web App "WebJob SDK" infrastructure. This makes sense, since they also share some legacy behavior from their ancestor.
• For larger projects, their mixing of logic, code and infrastructure can become difficult to manage. In these situations, good App Services or brand new Container Apps could be a better fit.

Incentivized

• What I noticed is that sometimes OWB doesn't generate the best SQL in the package especially when there are a high number of source tables in the ETL. It would be nice if ETL developers were allowed to update the generated packages in the database directly.
• Another thing - moving OWB ETLs from one database to another one could be easier - for example it would be nice to just copy the generated packages from one database to the other one without doing the deployment of these ETLs through OWB.

Incentivized

This is the most straightforward and easy-to-implement server less solution. App Service is great, but it's designed for websites, and it cannot scale automatically as easily as Azure Functions. Container Apps is a robust and scalable choice, but they need much more planning, development and general work to implement. Container Instances are the same as Container Apps, but they are extremely more limited in termos of capacity. Kubernetes Service si the classic pod container on Azure, but it requires highly skilled professional, and there are not many scenario where it should be used, especially in smaller teams.

Incentivized

Ab>initio, IBM Datastage 8.0

Incentivized

• They allowed me to create solutions with low TCO for the customer, which loves the result and the low price, that helped me create solutions for more clients in less time.
• You can save up to 100% of your compute bill, if you stay under a certain tenant conditions.

Incentivized

• It improved understanding of ETL functions. Data is consistent. The speed is pretty good.

Incentivized