Re: Oracle and Microsoft SQL Server

In article 920_at_feist.com, rrbatra <rrbatra_at_feist.com> () writes:
> As an Oracle Fan I would be tempted to give you rhetoric, but I will try
> to be fair and
> stick to the point :)

[snip a bunch of good points before this stinker below]

> There is nothing which SQL Server does and Oracle does not. In fact,
> all features found in SQL server 6.5, were there in Oracle 5.x or
> so...For a list, look in any PC week, Oracle loves comparing it with SQL
> Server.

These Oracle adds are like the US Postal Service adds on tv, where if you read the fine print you find that you are not comparing the same things.

Actually, while Oracle does have some good features, SQL Server(and Sybase) do have some that Oracle doesn't, especially those related to stored procedures, where Oracle is actually behind. Try returning multiple rows, or even multiple result sets, from an Oracle stored procedure. In Oracle, you have to use a work-around. In Sybase, I can say

select * ...

in my proc, and I get my rows back.

> I am not sure how SQL server performs without row-level locking.

Actually, row-level locking sometime HURTS performance in large databases, and is often turned off. This is really marketing BS.  

[snip more good points]

I just don't like blind faith in any vendor. Some are better than others, but none is perfect, and you can make a pretty strong case for each. And the honest truth is that you can probably use any rdbms to get a job done (I've use Oracle, Sybase, Informix, SQL Server, Allbase, etc), but depending on the job, certain ones might make your life easier.

Good luck,
Mark McNulty
mmcnul_at_jyacc.com

Note- these views are mine and not those of JP Morgan or JYACC. Received on Wed Jun 18 1997 - 00:00:00 CDT