Re: MS Access usefulness and size restrictions

From: Richard H. Rowson <richard_at_rhrowson.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 06:47:35 GMT
Message-ID: <9g6288$r99$1@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 - 01:47:35 CDT