Re: Oracle8/NT vs MS SQL 7.0

Hi,

    As a high-powered (those who know me need not laugh since I am entitled to interpret high-powered in any manner that I please) but underpaid (according to my wife) Oracle DBA I must point out that once Oracle is properly configured for a small to medium sized business monitoring Oracle can be simplified to a "Paint by the numbers" type of job that requires less than 15 minutes once per day on the part of a user.

    All the user has to do is run one script, chart the results, and if they exceed predefined limits call you, or your DBA for support. While it is certainly true that if you need to wring the last bit of performance out of an Oracle RDBMS, are dealing with multiple databases, or have very complex applications the presence of a highly paid DBA will pay dividends and result in lower cost of operation and ownership. (When you start measuring service outages in terms of hundreds or thousands of dollars per minute your high-powered Oracle DBA is worth every penny of his/her high salary.)

regards
Jerry Gitomer

Robert Macdonald wrote in message
<7ou3s1$1i9$1_at_ayers.ftech.net>...
>Both Oracle and SQL 7 have equivalent settings and I am sure if
you got a
>good DBA (or spent hours of your own time.)
>to look at the Oracle server the data would take up a similar
amount of
>room.
>
>Here in lies the main difference between Oracle and MS SQL 7 .
>
>MS SQL 7 does not require a high powered and overpaid DBA to
work well!!
>
>Oracle should heed this as a warning. I can not sell it to small
to medium
>sized businesses because of this.
>
>Robert
>
>
> _____
>Yuri Khait <yurikhait_at_home.com> wrote in message
>news:37B22540.D97CE466_at_home.com...
>> I did not do anything special, just installed Oracle8 on NT
with all
>> defaults, created my schema tables with primary keys) without
>> specifying tablesapce and storage (everything default).
>> Then I started loading data with SQLLOADER (direct method).
Then I
>> started creating a new datafiles when I ran out of space.
After data was
>> loaded I used Oracle Enterprise Manager to see how much space
allocated
>> and used in my tablespace (it was only one by default). There
was some
>> unused space but not much.
>>
>> Yuri.
>>
>> Jim Kennedy wrote:
>> >
>> > There is a difference in a datafile between used space and
allocated
>space.
>> > This may be the problem. (In Oracle) For example: I could
create a
>> > tablespace with a 2 gig datafile. Then I could do:
>> >
>> > create table example (col1 number not null, col2
varchar2(255))
>tablespace
>> > mine storage(initial 100m next 1m);
>> >
>> > The tablespace itself would be 2 gigs in size. The table
example would
>have
>> > 100 megs allocated to it, but the data in the table (none at
this point)
>is
>> > taking up very little space.
>> >
>> > In Oracle I can also control how much of the space is used
in a block to
>> > allow for row growth on updates. If I am going to insert
rows into a
>table
>> > that is readonly from there on out I would specify a low
percent free
>> > number. If I was going to have a table that had a lot of
updates to it
>I
>> > would specify a higher percent free number.
>> >
>> > I think this may be the answer to what you are seeing.
There probably
>are
>> > some storage differences between Oracle and MS SQL server,
but I am sure
>the
>> > differences are fairly small and would depend upon the data.
>> > Jim
>> >
>> > Yuri Khait <yurikhait_at_home.com> wrote in message
>> > news:37B0D7DB.C9CF6800_at_home.com...
>> > > I've found that it takes 3-4 times more disk space to
store the same
>> > > amount of data(including indexes) in Oracle8 than in MS
SQL 7.0 I
>could
>> > > not find any documents which compare disk storage on
Oracle and MS SQL
>> > > 7.0. I have 60GB database on MS SQL 7.0, according to my
tests it will
>> > > take > 200GB in Oracle.
>> > > Any comments ?????
>> > >
>> > > Tnx,
>> > > Yuri.
>
>
Received on Thu Aug 12 1999 - 12:57:33 CDT