Re: Oracle vs MS SQL Server

Jacob Love <jlove_at_engin.umich.edu> scritto nell'articolo <6rk9ri$b64_at_srvr1.engin.umich.edu>...
> In article <01bdcd0b$912fb880$ed0fb9c2_at_noone>,
> Gianluca Hotz <ghotz_at_alphasys.it> wrote:
> >I know nothing about version 8, but I found
> >the administrative course for version 7 quite heavy.
>
> Of course 8 is even "heavier", even without some of the newer features
> such as "nested tables" etc.

Again, this is one reason why I would recommend SQL Server for a start.

> >Moreover while more powerful, the PL-SQL is much more
> >complicated than T-SQL.
>
> PL/SQL is a real computer language. A fairly complex one originally
> based on ADA as a model. I can't comment on T-SQL not having had much
> exposure to it, but I can state that PL/SQL will afford you the ability
> to create quite sophisticated applications with a minimal need to reach
> outside of the database. Admittedly that's a double- edged sword: as a
> proprietary solution it does render your application more dependent
> upon Oracle itself.

I know that PL-SQL is much more powerful than T-SQL. But again IMO being simple, T-SQL is opportune for a start.

> >IMHO you should take the SQL Server course:
> >
> >- setup is much simpler
>
> This is a "bum rap" on Oracle. The fact of the matter is that setting
> up Oracle in a small environment is very simple. The NT and Win95
> version of Oracle server (as far as I know MS still hasn't bothered to
> port SQL Server to Win95) have default setups that will work very well
> with little or no modification. Then, if you need to make modifications
> because you are encountering size related problems, Oracle affords you
> the ability to make changes in virtually any aspect of the system.
> Even if you are reluctant to use Oracle support, there are plenty of
> third party resources that explain every parameter in great detail.

SQL Server 7 will be available also for the Win95/Win98 platforms. As I said I have not much experience with Oracle, the only Win95 version I tried was version 4 of Oracle 2000, and yes I must admit it was fairly simple to setup.

> Above, I noted that developing in PL/SQL does constitute something of a
> lock-in situation, but we find the same being true of SQL Server. If
> your database becomes too complex or two important to trust to NT, with
> Oracle you can move it with little fuss or muss to dozens of Unix
> platforms (now including Linux) as well as even larger class
> installations (OS/390, etc).

I'm not saying SQL Server is right now a competitor with Oracle about very large database systems. Hopefully this will became less true in the future with new releases of SQL Server (the terraserver is a great example of a huge database online). If you expect your database solution to grow to such an extent, then you would have probably chosen Oracle in the first place anyway.

Beside that, the new trend is to build multi-tier applications where the logic remains in the middle tier (written with one of powerful and broadly available languages like Visual Basic, Visual Basic script or anything else). Switching to a more powerful RDBMS, that can scale more, should be fairly easy in such a situation. Not so easy as for moving Oracle from NT to a Unix box, but as I said hopefully SQL Server and NT will scale more in the future.

> >- administration has been simplified to the point that
> > you can forget about it when developing small databases
>
> See above. The same is true for a large number of instances for Oracle.
> I've developed dozens of "small" databases using Oracle which have
> required only trivial change from the default install.

I'll take that for true. In my experience I had to deal with Oracle 7.3 installations administered by different guys, and they provided the administration support.

> >- chances are that you will find more and more SQL Server
> > databases around in the near future, small companies
> > simply don't have the money for a skilled Oracle
> > consultant.
>
> So, SQL Server consultants will be working for free? Because if your
> claim is that applications will be magically simpler to implement in
> SQL Server than Oracle, I have to admit I've never seen such a case.
> And how much does it cost to deal with problems resulting from the fact
> that various critical features simply don't exist in SQL Server?
>
> One thing that I think often missed in these discussions is that Oracle
> can be the simplest product to use under a great many scenarios.
> Oracle SQL is a very simple implementation, SQL*Plus continues to be
> (imo) a powerful and easy to use window on the database, and many of
> the Oracle tools (Developer and Designer 2000) permit true rapid
> application development. In fact, I think most people who have gotten
> "over the hump" of the learning curve on these products can produce
> useful applications much more rapidly than those people developing in
> C, C++ or Visual Basic.

Yes, of course I'm working for free....
Here in Italy the fact is that Oracle consultants cost more than SQL Server consultants. Don't know about other countries, but this is what I experienced here.

Most small companies are buying office or back office small business server because they are cheap and productive. It's full of consultants that can work in the Windows/NT environment and that can code in Visual Basic, integrating office components.

Developer and Designer 2000 can be easy to use, but I think Visual Basic and Visual Basic for applications is a better start.

> >You still have the chance to learn Oracle later and most
> >of what you have learned (database and query design for
> >example) will come handy.
>
> Of course if you learn Oracle now and Oracle disappears into the
> great Microsoft void, making the transition to SQL Server should
> be a no-brainer. :-)
 

:-)

Best regards,

-- 
Gianluca Hotz                                __
Technical Service Manager at Alphasys srl   /  \/ /
MCP Windows & MCP + MVP SQL Server         / /\/ /
Currently working for Ekar spa             \ \/ /\
http://ghotz.home.ml.org                    \__/\ \