Re: MS SQL server VS Oracle

Oracle (standard edition) can be cheaper than MS Sql Server.

This is based on pure licence costs alone - never mind total cost of ownership.

As regards MS Sql Server - how many simultaneous transactions will the DB need to support? Oracle has better concurrency.

If anyone starts mentioning TPC-C benchmarks (or similar) as a reason for getting a product then that is your early-morning-wake-up call to start looking for a better job with a better employer. Marketing has clearly started to overrule careful consideration of the technology whenever the debate gets to that stage.

There is almost no worse way to pick a product than looking at benchmarks alone.

3 million ( 3,000,000) rows is nothing special in the enterprise database arena. Oracle will chew through tens of hundereds of millions of rows no problem.

3 billion ( 3,000,000,000 ) rows is a bit more unusual.

Notwithstanding the above, it all comes down to choosing the best tool for the job. Unfortunately the decision making process is often influenced by a mixture of hearsay, prejudice, inappropriate statistics and supposition.

Caveat Emptor.

David N. Pomphrey OCP |DBA| MCP |TCP/IP| B.Tech.

Glasgow, Scotland.

The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) : http://www.ietf.org/

'Standards Track' RFCs : ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/std/std1.txt