Re: Oracle vs SQL server

So, your complaint is that you didn't set up SQL Server correctly (log device filling) and that's Microsoft's fault? It's pretty clear in the docs that you have to back up your transaction logs regularly. Deadlocks DO exist regardless of DBMS (I got plenty on Oracle and DB2), it's NOT a DBMS specific issue (other than configurations such as locking granularity). Your SQL "Guru" was clearly not correct, but you can't blame that on Microsoft either. Also, it sounds like you're working on SQL Server 6.5. Take a look at 7.0.

Take a look at Data General's 99.9% uptime guarantee with NT and SQL Server. Look at the customers running SQL Server 7.0 in production (at least 1 with 100.0% uptime since they deployed!).

Is Oracle better? Depends on what you want to do. Do they have more experience? Yes. But personnally I find DB2 to be the best, most reliable database. I think all 3 are doing good things.

--
Richard Waymire, MCT, MCSE+Internet, MCSD

Mladen Gogala <mgogala_at_earthlink.net> wrote in message news:3732DCFF.B296E946_at_earthlink.net...
> I don't indulge in flame wars except when they are Micros*t related. I
> have
> approximately 4 months of SQL Server experience and it was a traumatic
> one.
> Server hangs because "log device fills", no such thing as spool command
> in iSQL,
> so if your SQL procedure fails, you have to guess the line and the
> statement -
> telepathy and the fortune telling are required abilities, huuuuuge
> memory
> consumption, and deadlocks on a daily basis. With Oracle I don't know
> what is
> deadlock, with SQL I've had at least twice a day. My SQL Server guru has
> told me
> that "it's a bad design having 20 people accessing the same table at
> same time".
> He was amazed when I told him my opinion of his IQ and some interesting
> theories
> about his ancestors.
> If I never see SQL server again, it will be too soon.
> --
> Mladen Gogala
>
Received on Fri May 07 1999 - 13:50:01 CDT