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

In my opinion this is the best point regarding MS SQL Server. You concentrate on developement rather than constantly tweaking database. Auto-tuning is now part of server engine (those years of research now are included in the finished product). Biggest difference here is between Oracle and SQL Server. MS SQL Server 6.0/6.5 has 51 parameters to tune, SQL Server 7.0-43 params and SQL Server 2000 even less (I did not have time to count them). Compare this with Oracle having at least 200 parameters.

Sinisa Catic

Norris <jcheong_at_cooper.com.hk> wrote in message news:8gps53$qnv$1_at_adenine.netfront.net...
> In MSSQL, I can create a database maintainance plan in about 5 minutes
using a wizard that includes database consistency check and daily backup schedule of about 50 databases. It really saves a lot of administrative effort and time and I can concentrate on development as a Web Developer.
>
> In comp.databases.sybase leebert <*GNOSPAM*leebert_at_mindspring.com> wrote:
> > Someone else wrote:
 

> >> What's your take on administering DB2 vs. Oracle ?
 

> > My info on that is 3rd-hand... from what Meta Group told us (for their
$100k worth of opinion), Oracle is 2x - 3x the admin. overhead of DB2 (& DB2 is no walk in
> > the park!). Other hearsay is that takes 2x the # of DBA's to run an
Oracle shop. I guess people have money to burn. And with Oracle, you better have plenty 'o
> > money to burn anyway... <g>
 

> >>Is the training effort significant ?
 

> > Obviously there's DB2 training, very much worth it if you are using it.
But the admin learning curve is a good 4 months for someone w/ MS SQL or Sybase
> > experience.
 

> > But if you have ever done Xbase programming, I think DB2 makes the most
sense. You have control over table spaces, buffer pools and external storage (DB2 managed
> > RAM disks for Linux & NT w/ process address limits) that Sybase doesn't
 give you.  

> > Not to dys Sybase. Just DB2 makes more sense from the ground up. I think
the mainframe legacy has something to do w/ DB2 being a more structured & tunable
> > environment than Sybase. Mainframers demand that kind of tweak & tune
 capability.  

> >>Are there 3rd pty tools such as DBArtisan/Embarcadero for DB2
 

> > Yeh I think DBArtisan has finally caught up w/ DB2 v. 6 as well as MS
 SQL 7.  
> > DBArtisan is a bit dangerous if you do 'migrations' from server to
server. It'll SNAFU badly on Schema-BCP migrations. It's better to stage the schema extract
> > w/out the FK / RI , bcp manually & then slap on the FK's last.
 

> >>How about backup and recovery and locking/contention.
> >>And does one scale better than the other ?
 

> > W/ Oracle, readers never block writers and writers never block readers.
This is b/c of the row versioning engine ( visa vi Borland Interbase & Postgres ). So
> > concurrency issues are gone forever, great for OLTP. The upshot is that
for smaller stuff, Oracle won't be as fast as MS SQL or Sybase, but for truely huge
> > stuff, Oracle will keep right on chugging w/out concurrency problems.
 

> > Last think I heard from one of MS's in-house consultant was that DB2 is
still faster at queries than Oracle. Moreover, DB2 AS/400 has Encoded Vector Indexing -
> > this is an awesome tech: low cardinality columns are now optimizable w/
*very* compact EVI indexes. These aren't "compressed" indexes like Oracle or Informix or
> > Red Brick, this is a new technology. DB2 does in-RAM dynamic vector-hash
bitmaps, so it doesn't need prep'd bitmaps that you have to maintain. It's all generally
> > applicable, not an arcane maintenance problem. Hopefully DB2 UDB will
 see EVI's on NT & Un*x sooner than later.  

> > /lee
 

> > +-----[ http://leebert.home.mindspring.com ] --------+
> > It is impossible to begin to learn that which one thinks one already
 knows. -- Epictetus (c.55-c.135)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.cooper.com.hk
Received on Sun May 28 2000 - 00:00:00 CDT