Re: SQL server Vs Oracle - Technical/prices issues please

<mdlcpgs_at_alpha.gns.cri.nz.nospam> wrote in message news:7isovp$c92$1_at_newshost.comnet.co.nz...
> The price of functionality on Oracle bothers me.

You're not the only one...

> make for compelling bullet-points in a paper to the bean-counters. The
> intricacies of SQL optimization are much harder to write-up as compelling
> unless there is a lot of independent benchmarks to work off. Ultimately,

Although that doesn't make them any less important, or does it? Or should we just hide what is difficult to write-up?

> will the company get back the $$ on Oracle and a pricey DBA compared to
> buying SQL-Server? Is the difference in Oracle performance worth that much
> money to a small company?

Depends. We discussed here before that just like Oracle, SQL-Server NEEDS a DBA. or at the very least someone familiar with proper relational design. That ain't cheap either. Recognised by the MS-heads around here a couple weeks ago. The argument that SS is just "drop and go" is very nice, but doesn't wash with reality.

Unless of course one shouldn't bother with such trivialities given that memory is cheap and the database can be cached in "additional" memory anytime. Then the counter is: why use a database at all? Just get the darned data in an array in cache and slug away.

Or get a database that doesn't need to be completely cached in order to get results. And one that doesn't tie you down to one maker and one hardware platform. For many people that is argument enough. For others, it doesn't wash. Well, we are all different...

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
nsouto_at_nsw.bigpond.net.au.nospam
Is there a nospam domain?
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/the_Den Received on Mon May 31 1999 - 06:03:01 CDT