Re: Sybase vs Oracle - which is better?

I am not sure why you believe that cursors are "bad". Not sure what is "bad" about them. If I have a GUI that needs to display a long list but the user may not navigate the entire list why would I want to bring over the entire list - generates a lot of network traffic, takes a lot of room up on the client - RAM, generates a lot of disk i/o on the server. With a cursor I can get the first 20 or 30 and if the user wants to see more I can retrieve the next 20 or 30. There are situations where bringing entire results sets over in one fell swoop would be suboptimal and inefficient; not all cases of course.
Jim

kennedyleigh_at_yahoo.com wrote in message <72rn7e$fpb$1_at_nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
>
>> When it comes to benchmarks, the www.sybase.com site says that Sybase
>> holds the world record, but www.oracle.com says it holds the record. I
>> see in www.tpc.org that the fastest tpc is with Oracle!
>
>This is because benchmarking is quite an expensive exercise, so both
 vendors
>only put out new figures every few months. Why ever has the newest figures
>usually is the fastest !
>
>> I like Oracle as I've used it the most, heres why.
>> + sqlplus is superior than isql, at least I can check return error
>> codes.
>
>You can check error codes in isql as well.
>
>> + PL/SQL is more powerful than TRANSACT/SQL
>
>True - I'll give you that.
>
>> + I can see qll SQL activity for a particular session (SQLAREA),
>> can't do it in Sybase?
>
>I don't exactly know what you mean as I don't know oracle that well, but
 you
>can query the system tables or run several stored procedures to find out
 what
>is happening.
>
>> + Oracle comes standard with many utilities, whereas Sybase doesn't
>
>It doesn't have anymore functionality though - sybase far fewer, more
 powerful
>toos (ie: Sybase Central).
>
>> + Oracle has more options with triggers than Sybase. e.g. per row
>
>True.
>
>> + Monitors are standard with Oracle. (Sybase dont think so)
>
>Sybase comes with a monitor server and a historical monitor server which
 are
>very powerful.
>
>> + Row level locking been for years in Oracle, only recently in
>> Sybase.
>
>True, but only badly written apprications (ie: cursors) need row level
 locking
>anyway.
>
>
>> + Oracle can select data from another database on another server
>> (dblink) Can Sybase?
>
>Oracle cannot support more that one database in a server, where as Sybase
 can
>support more that you would ever need. It also supports the ability to
>select from another database, and that database doesn't have to be a Sybase
>database !
>
>
>Oracle does have some good points, but it also has some very weak ones. I
>would say that the killer function oracle has, which sybase doesn't is the
>parrallel server. If you need to run a single server over multiple
 machines,
>oracle is a better choice. If not, sybase is problably more suitable to
 most
>people.
>
>The main reason Oracle does so well is that many Packages (eg: SAP,
>Peoplesoft) are badly written cobol apps which use cursors for everything.
>Sybase had a religous was with SAP over row level locking and oracle got
 very
>rich because of it.
>
>Cheers,
>LK.
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Received on Wed Nov 18 1998 - 00:00:00 CST