| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
 |
 | |||
| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
|
| |||
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.misc -> Re: Oracle vs. Sybase
What, no new "Sybase sux" thread? I'm dissappointed.
Nuno Souto <nsouto_at_acay.com.au> wrote:
>Lee Doty wrote:
>> snip
>>
>> ARGH! Even "professional"-subjected newsgroups have trollers. I
>> snip
>> Sure, oracle is better in many more respects, sure this is an oracle
>> newsgroup, but we just sound like insecure children for knocking other
>> DBMSes.
>>
>
>So technically complete and correct comments like "awesome" when applied
>to Sybase 11 are in your opinion the go for this type of newsgroup? Have
>a good life...
T'anks buddy! I will. To answer your question, yes I do. I have no problem with person A saying, "I think product X is awesome". I also have no problem with person B saying that person A is wrong. What I do have a problem with is person B belittling person A for his opinion. This problem is aggrevated by the fact that most of the reasons person B gives are blatantly incorrect.
You will note that I'm not arguing with you that person A may be incorrect. In fact in this case I agree with you that Oracle has many strengths that Sybase/MS do not. (they also have some weaknesses that Sybase/MS don't have, but that is the exception rather than the rule.
[snip, you comparing Transact sql to Oracle's version of SQL]
>> "Stimpy, your wealth of ignorance asounds me"
>>
>> Transact-SQL correlates to PL/SQL, _not_ SQL. Your statement is like
>> saying, "...at least my car uses an engine, instead of that aberration
>> known as the suspension!"
>>
>
>Only in your imagination does it correlate to PL/SQL. Your statements
>don't make a law, I'm afraid... The fact that Sybase needs a lot of
>Transact-SQL to do what can be done in ORACLE by simply using vanilla
>and standard SQL doesn't count for anything, does it?
You can do this in Sybase and MS SQL Server too. As a matter of fact, the syntax is exactly the same. I know because I am currently porting a SQL Server project (with over a million lines of code) to oracle 7.3.
(well, not exactly the same, there is probably a 2% difference, for example, there are clustered and nonclustered indexes in MS, instead of clusters and indexes (actually, isn't it indices or something?) in oracle)
>How about being
>able to use standard SQL-DDL to define things like referential integrity
>and triggers in one go,
Again, the syntax for the declarative integrity constraints is almost (about 2% different) exactly the same. (I assume that's what you meant by "referential integrity")
As for the DDL, it is also almost identical to MS/Sybase.
As for triggers...
you are completely nuts if you don't think that triggers involve pl/sql. I refer you to the definition of a trigger in the oracle 7.3 docs. It plainly states that the body of the trigger is a pl/sql block. Now, you may have some triggers that can be worked without using anything but basic SQLin that block, but in those cases you can write the body of your MS SQL Server trigger with the same basic SQL.
>instead of having to write procedures for just
>about anything that is not a straight read/write?
Newsflash: In our project we are finding that things we needed to do with Transact SQL will require PL/SQL in about 98%+ of the cases. This leads me to believe that you don't know what you are talking about. (along with the rest of your posts, for that matter)
>How about supproting
>the latest ANSI-SQL standards in its ENTIRETY?
Which parts are you really missing? Maybe I'm just showing my own lack of knowledge here, but I haven't ran into major holes yet. Perhaps you could give specific examples? What would you like to be able to do... tell me and I'll try it with SQL Server.
>> snip
>> I'm sure you won't be able to resist a counter-flame, or start a new
>> thread appropriately titled "Oracle rules, sybase sux" (why is it
>> always "sux"... annoying), please don't bother. I'm sure everyone's
>> heard it before. If you want to give that type of response, take it
>> to email... and while you're at it, "looking at your navel"??? explain
>> that, if you will.
>>
>
>Hey, a "counter-flame" doesn't exist by definition without an "original
>flame". This is a bi-directional media, so don't be surprised to get
>something back when you dish it out...
I believe that you could benefit from your own advice here. As for me, I never mind a spirited debate.
...and just for clarity, you are the owner of the original flame, pointed at Todd Boss, if I'm not mistaken.
>Ah, the "gaze at the navel" bit, you mean? A metaphore for the
>concentration of a self-appointed "guru" to achieve an altered state of
>perception or meditation. It fundamentaly serves the purpose of "passing
>the time" until such interesting bits as real row-locking and many
>others finally see the light of day at Sybase (or should I say
>"Britton-Lee re-invented"?).
Sorry, that didn't help.
>Cheers
>Nuno Souto
>nsouto_at_acay.com.au
Anyway, from what I can tell, we have three equally likely scenarios here:
or
2) you are an industry dinosour. (don't worry, dinosaurs are really popular right now, thanks to steven spielberg) You have primarily worked with oracle and have never worked with Sybase/MS, or maybe worked with a young (pre-6.0) version of their product and really don't know that most of your posts are inaccurate.
or
3) you are just a troller, as evidenced by your willingness to personally slam people for voicing opinions different from your own.
Now, you are saying, "hey, you are kinda slamming me, you're the troller buddy", and to an extent, you are correct, I do enjoy putting uninformed loudmouths (especially the insulting ones) in their place. But you will never hear me slam on someone for their ideas (even if they like what I don't). What you will hear me slamming people for is an uninformed attack on someone else, as was the case here.
Enjoy!
-Lee
 |
 |