Re: MS SQL Server vs Oracle vs DB2 (&Sybase too)

leebert,

im curious, you seem to lump sybase and ms as one system in the beginning of your comment and then dont refer to sybase at all after that. now i am primarily a ms and sybase dba and i dont view them as the same from an rdbms perspective. sybase over the past few years has been very agressive in giving you options to overcome some performance problems with table partitioning, parallelization, etc. ms hasnt done that ( not sure about 7 tho- im still learning that one). also ms 7 doesnt seem to give you a lot of knobs to turn from their gui ( or at least i cant find many ).

your comment about oracle reader writer blocking is right on. it is cool. however from a performance standpoint the tpc site consistently shows oracle is much slower than sybase in the tpc-c benchmarks for what its worth. feature wise sybase seems to be behind oracle. architectually i am not sure if they have solved the scalability issues and parallel server is the one thing i think that makes a big difference with oracle. i know that oracle 7 was still mostly a rule based optimizer and were still trying to fix their cost based one. kinda lost track of 8 so dont know if oracle has an efficient optimizer yet.

cant really talk about db2. went to a dba class at ibm here in nyc and the instructor always answered my questions as 'that is beyond the scope of this class' and never really talked architecture so all the detailed 'this is how you fix this problem' was over my head and out the door the next day.

dave

In article <392E6F5D.2E9F1A1B_at_mindspring.com>,   *GNOSPAM*leebert_at_mindspring.com wrote:
> Meghana wrote:
>
> > I want to use Oracle as my database server. My lead
> > wants to use SQL Server as the database server. The project
> > is a Web Integration project with the database. We have to
> > use the Database extensively. So I want to know the
> > drawbacks of SQL Server over Oracle in features pertaining
> > to performance/cost.
>
> Oracle & MS SQL 7 are in a different league.
>
> I can speak to DB2 vs. SQL Server 7. DB2 & Oracle are in the same
league, whereas Sybase & MS SQL are fighting siblings. I work with all three: DB2, MS SQL 7
> & Sybase.
>
> My experience:
>
> SQL Server is *easier* out of the box than DB2.
> SQL server uses Dynamic SQL more efficiently. You'll need to write
 prep'd or static SQL in DB2 to get the same response time on queries.
> SQL Server will be *harder* to fine-tune b/c of the limitations of
Wintel trap it in a 2nd-rate server OS (even w/ W2K's improvements): Linux / Lintel isn't
> even a choice for MS SQL 7. There are some things I can do with DB2 on
 both NT & Un*x that you can never dream of w/ MS SQL 7.
>
> SQL Server 7 has broken the following: OUTER JOINS on VIEWS (MS
deprecated this from 6.5, claiming ANSI standard) & 'abort tran on log full.' You can
> force connections from DB2 by monitoring the log traffic.
>
> DB2 has a smarter optimizer.
> DB2 is approx. the same price as SQL Server on Wintel.
> DB2 is faster and more capable of handling heavier loads.
> DB2 (on NT 4) allows you to utilize more RAM than 2 Gig.
> DB2 is *very* flexible b/c of Java, table functions,
object-relational ablities & solid SQL 92+. MS SQL is stuck w/ Transact SQL & MS's antipathy towards
> Java. The world waits while MS fights within itself on what to do with
 MS SQL & Java (aka a modern stored procedure language).
> You'll need to get MS SNA Server ($1K corporate, $150 gov't) to
 get a stable OLE-DB driver for DB2 if you are going to use ADO.
> SQL Server's Scheduler / SQL Agent MAPI interface has caused us
lots of grief, never mind it's designed for single-developer -cum - dba -cum- NT-admin.
> MS barely documents, if at all, their kernel-level patches on SQL
Server. We've seen *major* optimizer bugs fixed (query missed pages) in SP1 that MS
> *NEVER* documented as fixing. IBM documents *EVERYTHING* and is very
 open about DB2. MS scares me as a vendor.
> SQL Server's security model allows NT Admins to take over your
server(!) even if you prefer SQL Server authentication, b/c you will need tracing to work
> & that only works thru NT domains.
> SQL Server will start up just by a remote user clicking on a GUI
object in the Enterprise Mgr (totally unacceptable for maintenance situations).
> SQL Server's & Sybase's xp_cmdshell is a very convenient equiv. of
 rsh (remote shell).
>
> As for comparing DB2 relative to Oracle:
> Oracle is reknown for higher admin effort than DB2.
> Oracle is 3X the price of DB2 on nearly every platform.
> DB2 is currently faster than Oracle (last benches I've seen)
>
> Comparing Oracle vs. MS SQL, Sybase & DB2.
> Oracle's row-versioning is way cool: readers never block writers and
 writers never block readers (ala Interbase).
> Oracle is spoken of as a very difficult vendor.
>
> There are more vendors supporting Oracle & MS SQL Server. But
PeopleSoft drop-kicked Oracle as strategic partner and is moving over to IBM DB2, which IMO,
> speaks volumes.
>
> MS SQL has come a long way from the 6.5 daze. SQL2K sounds like a good
 step in keeping up with the other vendors.
>
> SQL Server will get in your way once you learn how to DBA the thing.
Once you get DB2's learning curve out of the way, you'll be amazed what you can do with
> it.
>
> /leebert
>
>

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy. Received on Fri May 26 2000 - 00:00:00 CDT