Re: Does ORACLE has any stupid restrictions like MS-SQL

In article <33433338.4BF4_at_exesolutions.com>, "Daniel A. Morgan" <dmorgan_at_exesolutions.com> writes

>If you are using a SQL RDBMS and want robustness, scalability, and
>portability you choose Oracle or Informix. SQL Server isn't even a
>consideration.

Nor, apparently, is DB2, Ingres, etc.

>And where will SQL Server be later this year when Oracle starts
>offering ObjectSQL and object extensions? I think you will see SQL
>Server slip to a minor SQL database or a more robust version of Access
>unless Microsoft purchases Informix.

Jargon! But if I understand what you mean, DB2 Common Server (for OS/2, NT and UNIX) has had "relational object extenders" (powerful userdefined  function and datatype abstractions) on offer (as extras) for over a year now. I haven't noticed IBM wiping out the opposition. Okay, so Oracle will probably market them better, but I think you overrate the importance of objects to most business applications.

Conversely, CA have apparently decided that Ingres will not support objects. No mass-migration away from that database, as far as I'm aware.

Not that I'm defending SQL Server. I've not even used it. However, Bloor Research recently published a report comparing it other databases (mainly DB2 on NT and UNIX I think, though I think they may have since done further comparisons with other vendors), which basically stated that SQL Server had the edge on ease of use, but scored worst on user and processor scalability , consistency and robustness etc. I think this bears out some of the opinions in this thread.

You can find Bloor and snippets of this report on the Web somewhere.

-- 
Jeremy Rickard