Re: Oracle vs SQl Server

I think you are all missing something. I have no doubt MS's aim is to product a database as good as for better than Oracle. They uprooted WordPerfect, Lotus, Netscape, . . . Who do you think will have the database market in five years?

In article <922712$24s$1_at_nnrp1.deja.com>,   sybrandb_at_my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <t494l2nsrgp32c_at_corp.supernews.com>,
> "Michael A." <banana_boat_x_at_x_1stconnect.com> wrote:
> > > Can anyone provide me some insight into the relative merits of
 Oracle
> > > vs SQL 2000?
> >
> > I haven't used SQLServer all that much myself, but I know it's
 usually not
> > mentioned in polite company in the firms for which I've done work in
 recent
> > years. Mostly things having to do with table corruption and
 scalability.
> >
> > Personally, it's a Big Red Flag when I see a so-called enterprise-
 level DBMS
> > including, and even relying upon, a utility for recovering corrupted
> > database tables. Why is it even needed?
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> If you mean Oracle by a 'so-called enterprise level DBMS' and you
 would
> know anything about the transaction concept in relational databases,
> you could have answered this question yourself. How do you expect to
> recover from failure in Sqlserver if your last backup was several days
> or more ago? You probably know the answer: you can't!
> If that's ok with you stick to sqlserver or other Microsoft provided
> toys like Access which should never been used for enterprise level
> information systems.
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Sybrand Bakker, Oracle DBA
>
> All standard disclaimers apply
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
 --
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
>

Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/ Received on Tue Dec 26 2000 - 15:16:56 CST