Re: SQL server Vs Oracle

From: Arvin Meyer <a_at_m.com>
Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 09:52:20 -0400
Message-ID: <7gur6p$csu$1@esinet2.esinet.net>

Mladen Gogala wrote in message <3732DF47.935C1091_at_earthlink.net>...
>
>Your Ford is a cost effective method of driving, provided you don't have
>to
>transport 40 tons of steel bars from Pittsburgh to Detroit. Then your
>Ford
>isn't as effective as 16 wheel Mack. The conclusion is that you cannot
>say
>what is effective, not even in the driving world, much less in the
>database
>world where nuances can make a huge difference. I find oracle to be
>better
>fit overall for most of the companies, but that's only my 5c.

That is essentially what I have been saying, albeit indirectly, "the right tool for the job" Sending an infantry battalion to breakup a small street demonstration is not cost effective, and therefore unwarranted. For the same reason, you wouldn't send in a policeman with a water pistol. We do disagree however, in that I see SQL-Server as the more cost effective solution for most companies.

---

Arvin Meyer
onsite_at_esinet.net Received on Fri May 07 1999 - 08:52:20 CDT