Re: SQL vs. Oracle

> > > SQL 7 compares favorably to Oracle 7.0 in both speed and ease of
> > > use/programming.

Here's one feature of Transact-SQL that is especially easy to use: LACK of error handling, exception handling. By default, if a SQL statement blows up, control flow doesn't stop, unless an if() statement like this is put right after the SQL statement:

   SQL
   if(@@error<>0)
   begin
     bla bla bla...
   end
   ...

It reduces the amount of source code drastically and results in a smooth and short development cycle. Just kidding :-)

Also, lack of built-in SQL functions with a variable number of arguments, like greatest(), least(), decode(). Don't tell me that the CASE statement covers all of that.

PL/SQL, compared to Transact-SQL is something vs. nothing.

Here's one more advanced feature of MS SQL 7.0: advanced locking, like (NOLOCK), (PAGELOCK), (ROWLOCK). ROWLOCK was introduced into Sybase like servers just about one year back. In Oracle row locks have been since Oracle 3.

Often, Micro-SQL 7.0 tells you that you've been selected as a victim of a deadlock and the session is kaputsky.

Sometimes, it says that "not enough system memory to process your query", on a 2 Gig machine with 5 active users.

I like the syntax of the super-advanced query optimizer hints, e.g.

    left outer LOOP join
    inner HASH join
    inner MERGE join

So, the query has to be modified to specify a different execution plan. Hints are keywords, not comments.

One more thing: LACK of MINUS and INTERSECT operators. Of course, they can be implemented as outer joins, no doubt about that. However, sometimes MINUS works 3-5 times faster than you could be with the best outer join query plan.

The list could be continued and couple of miles down [the list] it will say: as for MS SQL 7.0 GUI, it looks decent.

Sergei Kuchin

Tapan Trivedi wrote:
>
> I thought I could pick up some knowledge out here but this is FU_____G
> entertainment.
> Maybe the question we should be asking ourselves is that to better suit the
> hybrid environments in the markets (it is not a zero sum game you know!) how
> quickly and easily we can pick up SQL Server . I write this here as the primary
> discussion in the NG is Oracle. But hey if you guys wanna flame things up a bit
> more thats cool. I always like to see grown people fight. Much better on
> Springer but hey an Oracle NG is not all that bad.
>
> Tapan
>
> Steve McDaniels wrote:
>
> > write much code in SQL7 (transact SQL)?
> >
> > (heh, heh)
> >
> > Scott Howell <schowell_at_mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > news:86bgq8$3tu$1_at_nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > Yes,
> > > I have had extensive experience in Oracle 7 and some moderate
> > experience
> > > in SQL Server 6.5/7.0
> > > As far as SQL 6.5/7.0 they are completely different in both performace and
> > > scalability. When I first ran SQL 6.5 it seems like a overgrown Access,
> > but
> > > SQL 7 compares favorably to Oracle 7.0 in both speed and ease of
> > > use/programming. Here is a summary comparing SQL 7 to Oracle 7
> > >
> > >
> > > Performance SQL Server (slight edge, but barely Oracle 8 somewhat
> > > beats SQL7 though)
> > > Management SQL Server (SQL 7 EM is has a better design and easier
> > to
> > > use)
> > > Cluster SQL Server (that Oracle FS is AWFUL, useless)
> > >
> > > Overall I like Oracle on everything but the NT platform, but since SQL 7
> > > only runs on NT the comparison is rather limited.
> > > Owen Southwood wrote in message
> > > <948375520.6079.0.nnrp-02.c2de2f84_at_news.demon.co.uk>...
> > > >If anyone has experience of both, can they tell me what are the basic
> > > >diffrences between SQL and Oracle databases? Are there any
> > > >performance advantages to either? Is one easier to code for than the
> > > >other? Is the syntax very different? etc.
> > > >
> > > >Thanks for any feedback.
> > > >
> > > >Regards
> > > >Owen Southwood - owen_at_listers.co.uk
> > > >If possible please copy reply via e-mail, thanks.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
Received on Wed Jan 26 2000 - 16:04:20 CST