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 MS SQL Server

Re: Oracle vs MS SQL Server

From: Ng K C Paul <paulkcng_at_news.netvigator.com>
Date: 1998/08/24
Message-ID: <6rqjvn$qt6$2@imsp009a.netvigator.com>

Is it really true that SQLServer 7.0 (beta) is available in win98 platform?

How is it compared with the SQLAnywhere or Personal Oracle on the same platform?

Gianluca Hotz (ghotz_at_alphasys.it) wrote:
: 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 \__/\ \
:
Received on Mon Aug 24 1998 - 00:00:00 CDT

Original text of this message

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