postgres is adequately efficient technology from last millennium, but at the level of execution efficiency it's pretty much the same as oracle, maybe a bit worse
more recent systems like impala, spark, kafka, cassandra, leveldb, influxdb, rocksdb, duckdb, monetdb, lmdb, sqlite, parquet, hbase, etc., are a lot more efficient at execution efficiency, though in many cases that's only 'up to such-and-such a scale' or 'above such-and-such a scale' or 'for such-and-such use cases'. there's a perhaps too comprehensive overview of the scene at https://github.com/newTendermint/awesome-bigdata
but the big business inefficiency with oracle is not technical, it's the human problem of not having control over your core business processes or the ability to continue carrying them out if, when oracle says 'jump', you say anything but 'how high?'
Disregarding your list of "modern technologies" for a second, I think we agree on the core point here: Postgres may or may not be better than oracle DB. The sizeable advantage it has: you're not dependent on another company that will try to extract your margin as a fee.
more recent systems like impala, spark, kafka, cassandra, leveldb, influxdb, rocksdb, duckdb, monetdb, lmdb, sqlite, parquet, hbase, etc., are a lot more efficient at execution efficiency, though in many cases that's only 'up to such-and-such a scale' or 'above such-and-such a scale' or 'for such-and-such use cases'. there's a perhaps too comprehensive overview of the scene at https://github.com/newTendermint/awesome-bigdata
but the big business inefficiency with oracle is not technical, it's the human problem of not having control over your core business processes or the ability to continue carrying them out if, when oracle says 'jump', you say anything but 'how high?'