Re: MSSQL vs Oracle - Just the facts

I've been developing for Oracle7 and Oracle8 for the past two years. Before that I used SQL Server (and its parent - Sybase) for few years. I'm certified by Microsoft as a DBA and Developer.

As you might guess from the list below, I favor SQL Server over Oracle, except for anything except large (> 1TB on a single machine) solutions. That's a gross generalization - your circumstances may dictate otherwise.Below are my reasons.

For Oracle:

- Better single-box scalability
- PL/SQL Packages
- Better platform-neutrality

Against Oracle

- Cost
- Hard to manage
- Less capable development and management tools.
- Hard to find information

For SQL Server

- Cost
- Ease of use
- Better SQL Server, SQL and NT performance monitoring and debugging tools
- Better integration with other MS technologies (IIS, ADO, ODBC, Office)
- T-Sql offers more and better functionaility than PL/SQL
- Active/Active failover with MSCS and SQL/E
- Better hot backup capabilities
- Better distributed heterogenous database capability.

Against SQL Server

- Single-box scalability.
- Lesser support for platform-neutral technologies
- Can't run multiple versions on one box.

Tossup
- Performance. In my opinion that is more dependent on the skill of the devs and DBAs than the DMBS.
- Row level locking was introduced in SQL Server7 - Parallel query was introduced in SQL Server7

Differing opinion to your list below:
> Only able to recover from last full backup (SQL minus)
> Datafile backups only(SQL minus)
> Able to recover to point in time to failure (From Oracle benefit list)
> Hot, cold, logical backup options (From Oracle benefit list)
> Changed block level backups available (From Oracle benefit list)
You can recover a SQL Server database using the last full backup plus the incremental backups. SQL Server does hot backups, which are done on a page by page basis, and do not interrupt the database's availability. Using the backups plus the transaction logs lets you restore to the point in time of failure.

> ANSI SQL Support only (SQL minus)

Microsoft? Not "embrace and extend?" :). T-SQL is not part of ANSI SQL. Oracle needs to catch up with SQL Server with regards to standard SQL support.

> Few performance tuning options (SQL minus)
Look at the NT performance monitor, and the SQL Monitor for performance diagnostics. Developers can use the "show plan" functionality to clue them into performance bugs.

> Single database per server (SQL minus)
 By "single database" are you referring to only having a single SQL Server process? You can have multiple databases per server, all being served from a single SQL Server process.

--
Christopher Payne, MCSE

"Doug Coan" <dcoan_at_aegonusa.com> wrote in message news:81ekgs$7n9$1_at_nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>
> Ok guys and girls - This is an issue that keeps on comming back. So, I
> would like to start a true features and functionality comparison. I'll
> probably put it out on a web page in time. Here is the start of a list
> that took me about 5 minutes to develop. Please add or dispute to your
> hearts content. Prove me right or wrong. I don't care. Thanks
> much..........
>
> My experience is 1 year with Oracle supporting 50+ instances on over 20
> servers, 4 years with Sybase on about 12 servers, 2 with MSSQL < 7 on a
> few servers and a two recent MSSQL 7.0 servers. Sybase however, is no
> longer is a contender in this argument in my opinion.
>
> Please enjoy the following as a starting point only.............
>
> For Oracle
>
> Supports multiple platforms (NT, Unix, Linux)
> Many performance tuning options
> Supports multiple instances per server
> Supports shared server setup
> Parallel query and parallel server
> Sequences for automating item increments
> Packages for improved performance
> Ability to Monitor/review sql
> Significant performance information available
> Can run multiple versions from single server
> Support for more table index options (reverse,iot,etc..)
> Procedural language support and ANSI SQL in PL/SQL
> Standby server support
> Able to recover to point in time to failure
> Hot, cold, logical backup options
> Changed block level backups available
> Row Level Locking
> Inherent ROWID Support
>
> Against Oracle
>
> Difficult to setup
> Complex DBA support
> Expensive
>
> Against MSSQL
>
> NT only
> Few performance tuning options
> Single database per server
> Dedicated server setup only
> Single processes only
> Must be coded using tables
> Single stored procedurs
> No SQL monitoring capabilities
> Little performance tuning information available
> Only one version can be installed per server
> Few table index option supported
> ANSI SQL Support only
> n/a
> Only able to recover from last full backup
> Cold and logical backups only
> Datafile backups only
> Page level locking
> Must create own rowids
>
> For MSSQL
>
> Easy to setup
> Simple DBA support
> Cheap
>
> --
> Doug Coan
> Senior Client Server System Integrator
> AEGON USA
> dcoan_at_aegonusa.com
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Received on Fri Nov 26 1999 - 18:41:59 CST