Re: Who (has) to prepare more ? Oracle vs. MSSQL DBAs

>
> Who (has) to prepare more ? Oracle vs. MSSQL DBAs
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> This is the real subject.

Ok, the answer to that question seems to be obvious now. I think it's a big mistake of Oracle to underestimate the importance of that question. I know of many shops that don't even have a DBA. They run some DBMS out of the box and their systems or network admin barely knows how to make a backup of the database.

As a software developer, I am of course concerned about performance (otherwise I wouldn't have posted this) but my main business is not database tuning.

> Oracle has never been sold on its ease of use so why, Alexander, are
> you comparing your two respective 'default installations'.
>
> Glad to see your coming across to Oracle.
>
> Interesting that MS's attempted trashing (or embracing and extending
 and
> extorting) of Java has lead to a migration away from their RDBMS.
>
> Well God does move in mysterious ways I suppose.
>
> As N.Souto said, you have got to learn the product first.
>
> And don't evaluate any product until you've given it a correct
> configuration.

I'm not really evaluating it based on this comparison, it was just an ad-hoc test. What you and N.Souto have told me, is just what I hoped to hear. One other thing I would like to hear is, where I can find a paper that describes shortly how to change the default settings to a reasonable starting configuration without having to read hundreds of pages on performance tuning.

> Its not all about "how quickly you can get a first compile on an
 app"?
> , it's about "how reliable and fast its going to whole system going to
> be 3 years from now?".
>

I absolutely agree with you and one reason I left "Microsoft Land" is exactly that it never got stable and worse is to be expected with the entrance of Windows 2000...

Thank you,

--
Alexander Jerusalem
VKN
ajeru_at_gmx.net


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.