Re: Pro's & Con's on Oracle & SQL Svr?

If you've got 50,000 people on an Access database then you are a far better developer than I and I salute you. Heck if you can connect 50,000 people to SQL Server simultaneously my hat is off to you.

But my point is that the size and requirements for a database often (not always but then when is anything in this business absolute) related to the number of employees (or customers). As a business grows it has offices located in multiple time zones and in multiple countries. It has a need to store data in multiple languages. And to connect all of this together with links between databases, to keep the enterprise running 7x24x365 making it intolerant of down-time. Its security requirements increase as do lots of other requirements.

Few companies with 100 or 1000 employees (once again not all) have the security requirements of a Boeing or AT&T. Few small companies can incur the costs and damages of a larger company if a server is off-line for 2 hours or 2 days. And on and on and on. A downed line-of-business system in a large company can cost the company more than one million dollars an hour. Which makes the cost of Oracle, Solaris, and a decent DBA pretty cheap at the end of the day.

So it is not a cockamamie definition. If Access could do the job, and it can't, then yes I would call it an enterprise database. But last time I checked replication was not one of its capabilities.

Daniel A. Morgan

BP Margolin wrote:

> Daniel,
>
> What the hell does the size of a company have to do with the capabilities of
> a database? According to your cockamamie definition, if a company with more
> than 50,000 employees is using Access, then Access is an enterprise level
> database.
>
> Enterprise level databases are defined by their capabilities ... not by the
> number of employees in a company.
>
> ----------------------------------------
> BP Margolin
> Please reply only to the newsgroups.
> When posting, inclusion of SQL (CREATE TABLE ..., INSERT ..., etc.) which
> can be cut and pasted into Query Analyzer is appreciated.
>
> "Daniel A. Morgan" <dmorgan_at_exesolutions.com> wrote in message
> news:3ACA4787.AC16D159_at_exesolutions.com...
> > I think you've hit the nail squarely on its head. What some of us call
 Enterprise
> > is a company with more than 50,000 employees.
> >
> > Anyone that thinks that an enterprise database can be run on a PC is
 describing
> > something I would call a glorified hot-dog stand.
> >
> > Daniel A. Morgan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Tuomas Hosia wrote:
> >
> > > "BP Margolin" <bpmargo_at_attglobal.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Bottom line, as I stated originally: both Oracle and SQL Server are
> > > >excellent products, and both are enterprise level databases.
 Preferences for
> > > >one or the other, tend to boil down to familiarity with one or the
 other.
> > >
> > > 'Enterprise level database' on a PC?
> > >
> > > You must be joking.
> > >
> > > Or your definition of 'enterprise' is a company with 100 people.
> > >
> > > Tuomas
> >
Received on Wed Apr 04 2001 - 01:16:54 CDT