Re: SQL Server v Oracle

In article <VA.00002600.008b3769_at_neilpikeport.itops.natwestuk>,   100577.553_at_compuserve.com wrote:
> Fergal,
>
> I seriously doubt anything is unbiased. What do you mean by "large"?
>
> > Could anyone give me or point me in the direction of and unbiased comparison
> > of SQL Server 7 and Oracle 8 in a very large databases NT based environment.
>
> Q. Why is SQL Server better/worse than Oracle?
> (v1.1 1999.03.11)
>
> A. This is as much a "religious" debate as a technical one. Both products
are
> good (as are others such as DB/2, Informix, Sybase...). My advice would be to
> stick with whatever you have the technical skills/experience with, and don't
> change for the sake of it. SQL Server, Oracle and DB/2 will all be around for
> a long time - some of the others have had financial problems recently but
> should survive.
>
> But for those who have to have a pro and con list, here is one to get you
> started (though no doubt some of the points would be contested). It assumes
> SQL 7 and Oracle 8.
>
> Pro's of SQL Server
> -------------------
>
> On the same NT hardware as Oracle, SQL Server has the best tpcc numbers.
> (www.tpc.org)

Only in terms of the cost, not in the terms of performance.

>
> Mobile/client version of product is exactly the same as the server one (with
> Oracle it isn't)
>
> SQL 7 has better dynamic space and memory management

What the heck is that? How did you come to that surprising conclusion?

>
> SQL 7 is easier to install, use and manage

It's much harder to fine-tune and has some really nice features, such as lock escalation, which can do wonders in terms of concurrency. (SQL7 converts row locks to a table lock if the number of locks exceeds a threshold. That can prevent another session from updating a table. In SQL7 readers do block writers which is even better for concurrency. And yes, you guessed it, Oracle does neither of those lovely things)
>
> SQL Server is cheaper to buy than Oracle (though this is such a small part of
> lifetime support costs it really shouldn't be a consideration)
Only if you are comparing the price of Enterprise Edition version. Workgroup server costs rougly the same as SQL7.
>
> Extra facilities "in the box" - e.g. OLAP, English Query, DTS

Most of them unusable or just a fancy name for a feature that Oracle has since the time unknown.

I would like to add portability as a plus for SQL7. SQL7 can run on any platform as long as it runs NT, which is famous for it's scalability and stability. Rumor is that CHASE, CITICORP and AMEX will ditch their MVS mainframes and start running exclusively on NT on April the 1st, 2000.

>
> Pro's of Oracle
> ---------------
>
> Scales higher than SQL 7 - whether your system needs to scale that high is
> doubtful. SQL 7 should be fine for 1 Terabyte of data and 2500 users. (These
> are conservative figures and are more to do with NT's scalability than SQL's).
>
> Clusters better than SQL
>
> More powerful 3GL language than SQL - PLSQL vs TSQL
>
> Runs on non-NT platforms - e.g. Unix, MVS.
>
> Been around longer.
>
> Neil Pike MVP/MCSE. Protech Computing Ltd
> (Please post ALL replies to the newsgroup only unless indicated otherwise)
> For SQL FAQ entries see
> http://go.compuserve.com/sqlserver (library 1) - latest stuff is always here
> www.ntfaq.com/sql.html
> http://www.swynk.com/faq/sql/sqlserverfaq.asp
>
>

--
Mladen Gogala

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own Received on Mon Apr 19 1999 - 08:56:35 CDT