Re: Sybase vs Oracle - which is better?

Sybase comes with a nice set of stored procedures for checking system tables and monitoring....Oracle has none.

Sybase has the capability to do temp tables owned by a session. I think there a bit of a bitch to manage in Oracle.

Sybase, generally speaking, is easier to administer.

As for row level locking... I have never worked on a system in 10 years where that was necessary.

The whole Oracle architecture seems a tad primitive.

joe

Karl Zdero wrote:

> The usual techie debate continues,
> Is Sybase better than Oracle or is Oracle better than Sybase?
>
> 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!
>
> Now apart from benchmarks, what makes either database better?
>
> 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.
> + PL/SQL is more powerful than TRANSACT/SQL
> + I can see qll SQL activity for a particular session (SQLAREA),
> can't do it in Sybase?
> + Oracle comes standard with many utilities, whereas Sybase doesn't
> + Oracle has more options with triggers than Sybase. e.g. per row
> triggers and per statement
> (In Sybase you must write a cursor loop to action a multiple row
> insert for example)
> + Monitors are standard with Oracle. (Sybase dont think so)
> + Row level locking been for years in Oracle, only recently in
> Sybase.
> + Oracle can select data from another database on another server
> (dblink) Can Sybase?
Received on Thu Nov 19 1998 - 00:00:00 CST