Re: Differences between Oracle RDBMS and MS SQL Server

Yes, you can have server side cursors. But MS tells you not to use them. Also If you select too many rows you get lock escalation. In Oracle readers never block writers (or other readers).

Fairly easy to resize a redo log. It can't be an active one (can always force a log switch if you want to resize the one that is active).

Jim

"Lewis Bruck" <lbruck_at_nwlink.com> wrote in message news:3a2c8b2c_1_at_news.nwlink.com...
> A couple of notes:
>
> Data spaces (or filegroups in SQL Server lingo) can have multiple files in
> them.
>
> SQL Server has it's own set of hints to specify join execution strategy
 and
> order.
>
> Cursors are supported as both a client and server-side programming
 paradigm.
> You have to use ODBC or OLE/DB to use them vs. ADO, but that is a
 developer
> choice.
>
> The lack of multi-column IN clauses, MINUS, and INTERSECT are true...but
> they can be worked around.
>
> Mike Krolewski <mkrolewski_at_rosetta.org> wrote in message
> news:90hg9j$10u$1_at_nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <90ge8n$4as$1_at_porthos.nl.uu.net>,
> > "J. Pieters" <jeroen.pieters_at_bluewater-group.com> wrote:
> > > What kind of things can you not do on the fly with SQL Server but can
 wih
> > > Oracle?
> > >
> > > James Williams wrote in message

 <3a2b96a8.3170911_at_news.mindspring.com>...
> > > >"J. Pieters" <jeroen.pieters_at_bluewater-group.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >I would go with Oracle for Enterprise applications on UNIX and maybe
> > > >NT.
> > > >
> > > >I would go with MS SQL server for departmental applications that will
> > > >never get beyond NT world.
> > > >
> > > >Oracle will beat all of your criteria vs. SQL sever except ease of
 use
> > > >(not that Oracle is terribly hard!).
> > > >
> > > >There are things you can do in Oracle on the fly but you must reboot
> > > >the server for using SQL Server.
> > > >
> > > >>Dear All,
> > > >>
> > > >>I'd like to start a discussion about the differences between Oracle
 RDBMS
> > > >>and MS SQL Server.
> > > >>
> > > >>The goal of the discussion is to get an image of when to choose for
 Oracle
> > > >>and when to choose for MS SQL Server.
> > > >>
> > > >>In the discussion I'd like to focus on the following issues:
> > > >>- Locking
> > > >>- Readconsistency
> > > >>- Database crash recovery
> > > >>- Multi user
> > > >>- Manageability
> > > >>- Performance and tuning
> > > >>- ..... and further.
> > > >>
> > > >>To start the discussion:
> > > >>
> > > >>I think Oracle is providing the best database there is, because of
 it's
 read
> > > >>consistency, row-level locking, backup facilities, crash
 recoveries, etc..
> > > >>
> > > >>Everyone who agrees or disagrees with this statement I invite to
 react on
> > > >>this statement and explains his opinion.
> > > >>
> > > >>Grtx,
> > > >>
> > > >>Jeroen Pieters
> > > >>Oracle DBA
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > the SQL Server has no MINUS or INTERSECT
> >
> > 'In clauses' have only one argument rather than multiples allowed in
> > Oracle
> >
> > insert into <table> select requires all columns in the same order as in
> > the schema, rather than Oracles allowing one to select the number and
> > sequence of the fields in the table.
> >
> > updates only allow 1 column per set clause
> >
> > update foobar set field1= x, field2=y
> >
> > rather than Oracle which allow sets
> > update foobar set field1=x, (field2,field3) = (y,z)
> >
> > Hints? -- Oracle allows for hints to direct the optimizer.
> >
> >
> > No PL/SQL -- no records , no PL/SQL tables
> >
> > SQL Servers outer joins are very limited ( can only join the tables,
> > cannot add addition condition to the selection of the outer table )
> >
> > As an Oracle developer writing SQL Server, I have come across numerous
> > points where SQL Server's SQL cannot perform the task I am interested
> > in doing without adding a temporary table or adding a single field
> > primary key to the table.
> >
> > dataspaces are limited to a single file.
> >
> > Extension to SQL by Oracle is really nice -- in terms of manipulating
> > strings and numbers. It's no ANSI, but it works really well.
> >
> > SQLNet is a wonderful thing. Responsive, nearly universal. Much better
> > than ODBC or JDBC or any other genericDBC.
> >
> > Cursor vs record sets. The cursor is a wonderful innovation. Why wait
> > to retreive the known world when you can work on the first couple of
> > rows. I find record sets require too much programming to buffer up the
> > response. In using cursors, one can retrieve 1 or more records at a
> > time, process that prior to going to the next set of records. It really
> > makes most programming easy.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Michael Krolewski
> > Rosetta Inpharmatics
> > mkrolewski_at_rosetta.org
> > Ususual disclaimers
> >
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
>
>
>
Received on Tue Dec 05 2000 - 01:08:33 CST