Re: Oracle VS MS SQL

Good useful applications have a tendency to grow. More people want to use something that is useful. Plan that you may quickly have more than 400 concurrent users. If you go with MS SQLServer you are stuck on 1 OS platform. If you go with Oracle you have all the platforms MS supports plus something like 90 others. So if you have to go with larger hardware or a faster OS with Oracle you could. Also think of the mentality in mind. MS SQL Server is built by a company in the PC market; if you call their technical support problems are often solved by rebooting the PC - sloppy code by someone. Oracle is built by a company that had its roots in the mainframe market. The expectation in the mainframe market is not to reboot the mainframe when a problem arises!

Also Oracle architecture is well ahead of MS SQL Server (yes, even well ahead of just released version 7) in reliability, scalibility, and portability. Cost? Making apples to apples comparisons and including all the little pieces MS hits you with and looking at ongoing costs (MS wants you to rebuy every 2 years; and changes the OS so you cannot really hold out too long and not buy; whereas, Oracle has an initial fee and then you can pay for an ongoing maintenece fee and get new versions and upgrades as part of that fee.) MS SQL Server is not cheaper at all.

Having done scalibility test on in house real world applications Oracle scales far better than MS SQL Server on the same hardware. Also you can configure more things in Oracle if you feel you need to.

Jim

Christian Sander Rosnes wrote in message <72pgdn$mg1_at_grandma.link.no>...
>Hello!
>
>Our dept. is looking for a database solution for storage
>and retrieval of statistical and service related data
>for our telephone services.
>
>The choice is narrowed down to MS SQL or Oracle. I'm
>looking for comparisions between these two products;
>Hands-on experience is welcome.
>
>Plattform will be a PC (w/Raid) running Windows NT or
>Linux. (The latter rules out MS SQL, of course).
>
>The database should handle at least 2 GB of data.
>Performance must be high, because telephone applications
>will use the database for "real-time" information-
>retrieval.
>(We might have as many as 400 callers querying the
>database for unique records at same time. Search
>parameters will be indexed fields).
>
>Stability is also crucial. Our services are running
>24 hrs a day, 365 days a year.
>
>The database server should also be accessible from
>the web, via perl scripts.
>
>MS SQL looks like the least expensive solution, but I'm a
>little worried with regards to performance and stability.
>
>I'm looking for comparisons regarding stability,
>performance and price.
>
>Any help is highly appreciated.
>
>Thanks.
>
>--
># Christian Sander Rosnes
># (To reply remove 'nolink' from email address)
>
Received on Mon Nov 16 1998 - 22:27:42 CST