Re: oracle is better?

From: Tony Johnson <tonyj_at_primenet.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 13:29:14 -0700
Message-ID: <3829D59A.B5BF4EEE@primenet.com>

SS7 can handle 500,00 rows easily. Oracle is much more expensive and more difficult to monitor. If you dont need it due to an application you are buying and that is the largest table you have then I would stick with SS& til you have more reason to go to Oracle.

ZUSCH wrote:

> My company is in a quandry between Oracle + SQL Server 7. Our main fear is
> that SQL will not be able to hold the amount of data we wish to store (all-text
> records, an upwards of 500,000 rows) Also, can anyone explain why Oracle is SO
> MUCH more expensive than SQL? Microsofts answer was that it is "their
> mentality to want the small business to have access to this technology). Can
> anyone comment to the contrary? Please o please. reply to:
> kmorris_at_goplanet.com
Received on Wed Nov 10 1999 - 14:29:14 CST