Re: oracle is better?

Hi.

 Another couple of problems to consider :

1. Oracle PL/SQL language enables you to develop "fat" server/"thin" client applications. You don't have to worry about propagation of software updates to clients. As far as I know SS7 Transact-SQL language forces you to work with "thin" server/"fat" client. It means that a lot of your buisness logic reside on client ( think of data traffic and client software updates ).
2. Check locking of SS7. In prev version if some user was making an update through cursor - you had to wait until the update was finished to read the updated row. I don't think it changed in SS7. In Oracle you don't wait. It retrievs pre-update data from rollback segments.

  HTH. Michael.

In article <bzWW3.1912$Zu4.31165_at_news1.rdc1.mb.home.com>,   "Multifarious" <multifarious_at_home.com> wrote:
> Zusch,
>
> Comparing Oracle to Sqlserver is like comparing an apple to orange.
Their
> both fruit but sure taste different.
>
> When you are looking at a database solution, it is important to
consider all
> the factors. Does your company need scalability? What level of
security is
> needed? How many transactions per second/minute/hour/day are
expected?
> Will the application be 7x24? What is your in-house expertise? What
is
> your training budget?
>
> SQLserver will run fine on NT with it's limitations and it's limited
> security. Oracle can be run on just about any platform available and
can be
> made secure to the extreme depending on the platform selected.
>
> If you application is going to be small and remain small then
SQLserver may
> be the solution for you. If the app will expand and perhaps connect
to
> other systems, you may quickly out grow SQLserver.
>
> If the application is going to grow, a higher end database will be
required.
> Oracle is not the only high end rdbms available, but it is definitely
one
> of, if not the best! Yes, the products are expensive, but it is also
true
> that you get what you pay for. I have learned this through 25 years
of
> experience in the industry.
>
> You have mentioned that you expect 500,000 records but you do not
mention
> the type or amount of data collected in the fields of these records.
If you
> saving large amounts of data in large fields within your rows, you
may find
> performance problems with any product. Plan your system with extreme
care,
> then consider the underlying database product.
>
> Just my two cents,
>
> Brian W. Chester
>
> The views are my own and do not reflect those of any affiliated
> organization.
>
> ZUSCH wrote in message <19991110152512.11284.00003309_at_ng-
fa1.aol.com>...
> >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
>
>

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy. Received on Fri Nov 12 1999 - 12:22:38 CST