Re: SQL Server vs. Oracle

From: Fernando <fernandoluis_at_mac.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 09:54:54 -0700
Message-Id: <92A214FA-B4B5-11D8-8C74-000A95A6AB02@mac.com>

SQLServer suffers from the same "syndrome" as Visual Basic: it makes the easiest parts of programming (in VB) or of administration (SQLServer) easier. But the hard parts actually get much harder. So, the experience of administering a large, production SQLServer2k db is probably as nasty as maintaining/upgrading a large VB app.

One thing is that SQLServer doesn't give as much control as you can expect, so when things like "why is this so slow" happens, life is much harder. Of course, things really go bad when you have a very large legacy VB code using SQLServer2k and everything is very slow and they just call you to "optimize this" (where "this" can be legacy vb code, db schema, sql, etc, etc).

> -----Original Message-----
> From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org
> [mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org]
> On Behalf Of Leslie Tierstein
> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 5:23 PM
> To: oracle-l
> Subject: SQL Server vs. Oracle
>
>
> See:
> http://www.progstrat.com/research/gems/040401rdbmscmcs.pdf
>
> The poster on the SQL Server list where I found this reference was
> astonished that the report would find that 10g was easier to configure
> and
> administer than SQL Server.

Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com

To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request_at_freelists.org put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.

--
Archives are at http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Wed Jun 02 2004 - 11:51:50 CDT