Re: MS Access usefulness and size restrictions

I'm not the DBA, nor the system administrator, on paying projects I do, so the only MS SQL Server I have installed was the Developer/Desktop editon of SQL Server 7 that came with SR-1a of Office 2000 Developer Edition. Installing it was the proverbial "piece of cake", easier even than some Windows application software installs.

I'm quite certain that huge, server-farm installations of either MS SQL Server or Oracle would be "more taxing".

"Richard H. Rowson" <richard_at_rhrowson.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:9g6288$r99$1_at_news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> I am no expert on Oracle versus SQL Server, but I expect that some SQL
> Server installations are being migrated because Oracle is known to be more
> scalable, when properly designed, etc. The other rumour I heard that for
> very large databases, SQL Server does not get any faster after 12 CPU's,
> whereas Oracle does.
>
> On that basis, if your database application is so immense then use Oracle,
> but SQL Server seems to be making a lot of inroads into what was Oracle's
> home turf. What will happen to Oracle when SQL Server finally scales to an
> equivalent number of CPU's and RAM. One of the reasons that Access and SQL
> Server development costs are lower is because it is for many users a damn
> site quicker.
>
> Anecdotal evidence from a software house was that Oracle took 4 man days
 to
> install on an NT4 server. SQL Server took 30 minutes. Which one do you
 think
> many clients prefer if they do not need the sheer horse power of Oracle?
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Richard H. Rowson
>
>
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Sun Jul 22 2001 - 01:47:42 CDT