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

From: Norris <jcheong_at_cooper.com.hk>
Date: 2000/05/30
Message-ID: <8gvh2a$qme$1@adenine.netfront.net>#1/1

I think the drawback of SQL Server 2000 is that the stored procedure does not support Java and Visual Basic.

In comp.databases.sybase Sinisa Catic <sinisac_at_9bit.qc.ca> wrote:
> 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 Tue May 30 2000 - 00:00:00 CDT