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

I am nt a critic and I don't review databases, It is my experiences with various database products.

What is so good in Oracle, which can't be done in DB2 is my question. DB2 is less expensive compared to Oracle. It is truely scalable and supported on many platforms.

Considering SQL Support, Sybase is much better compared to Oracle and DB2.Especially the SQL based stored procedure is good and comes handy. temp database is very handy to resolve many big quiries. Updates are powerful with joins. No other database is that powerful as sybase. Replication concept is much better in Sybase than other databases.

However Db2 ver 7 come with much powerful SQL support and refined database concepts.

If it is question of performance and demanded resources both suck equally. In scalability both are equally good. Reliablity, I have never had an instance of crash of database for past 3 years with DB2.

When giving out the information, I mean documentation both are bad. Oracle pretends they are the self appointed guardian of the database technology. Often you find other methods are wrong and What Oracle does is the correct.

DB2 tools and documentation sucks. Control center is a pain to work with, the gears will never stop. ambiguous error messages are common. There is a tool in DB2 called db2trc, try that is a joke. You get every info except what you need. Very prominent with IBM products is, words like "Not Supported in this platform". db2set is a command with which you set env variables. This can set 100+ parameters. No where in the manual it is consolidated and listed.

You will end up shelling out more $ to get support than the product cost. This is just because the proper information is not contained in the manuals. I am not sure, whether is the modern business strategy. It is frustrating to waste time searching the information. This 100% true for Oracle as well.

Atleast you have some thing to work and find some bugs in other databases. Oracle, That is not the case. If you are not able to some thing in Oracle, that means it is not database technique. it is always not oracles defect, It is only your poor understanding of database technique. You shouldn't be surprised If they ask to change either the machine or the DBA. Oracle is the real pain. Oracle survives, Just because people worked in Oracle never worked with other databases, and their good business policy to introduce it at college level as model for database. As a Student they get hands on and try, rather instigate their offices to go with Oracle insted of learning much better database.

Nothing compares to Microsoft products for help information and tech support. Even before the product is released, 100 books and reviews are in market.

All are equally competent in releasing the product with bugs.

Sybase is a single OR gate. Either it will work or crash the server. deadlock was very dominant bug often requested to attach buffer pools / cache attachments as solution. At times you may end up with having entire database in memory than in Disk. It was rediculous and was a basic mistake, as to get dead lock you don't have to have transaction. two simple insert / update would result in dead lock. Hope it is fixed in the latest release, I didn't get an opportunity to verify.

Fortunately I didn't have Opportunity to work with MS SQL server. Is it not good? Am I not saved from some pain?

It is really fun to work with database products.

In article <8gmjna$l8p$1_at_nnrp1.deja.com>,   siuhungkuen_at_my-deja.com wrote:
> 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.
>

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