Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.misc -> Re: Oracle vs. Sybase

Re: Oracle vs. Sybase

From: Jon <jdf_at_tiac.net>
Date: 1997/06/13
Message-ID: <33a153a0.694396479@165.71.8.251>#1/1

System 11 has opened up a vast number of tuneable parameters over earlier versions of SQL Server, including configurable buffer pools for I/O sizes of 2,4,8 or 16K, the ability to create named caches and bind objects to these caches and too many other tuning options to mention here. There will be more coming with newer releases.

The transaction log filling can be solved by sizing it appropriately and using thresholds to manage the logs automatically.

One of the nice features of the Sybase Architecture is that instead of putting everything in one box, you deploy what you need, keeping the individual products lean and quick. If you need replication, you deploy Replication Server. If you need bitwise indices, you deploy IQ. If you need heterogeneous joins, you deploy Omni. I think Sybase did it right with their building block approach, rather than using the Universal, All-In-One approach taken by some of the other vendors.

System 11.x is a very stable, fast, tuneable Database Server and from what I've heard is coming it will continue to get better without getting FATTER like some of the other products out there. I've also heard tell, for those who need row-level locking (I've never found a need for it in any application I've worked on) that it's coming soon, real soon. This should address some of the issues people have had with products like those from SAP.

Just my humble opinion,
Jon



"Life is a tragedy for those who feel,
 And a comedy for those who think..."                                        

 jdf_at_tiac.net


Received on Fri Jun 13 1997 - 00:00:00 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US