Re: Oracle vs Sybase (clarification please)

Well, Sybase is a dead issue IMO. Sybase sold the their server to Microsft for use on NT. MS-SQL Server certainly has a brigher future than Sybase. At any rate, they are the same thing, (Sybase and MS-SQl) , and I use MS-SQl and Oracle.

The most common complaints:

• Oracle logs *everything*. Yes, yes it does. In SQL, MS decides what to log, and if it feels that the transaction is important enough, it will log it, or it may not.
• oracle uses temp tables too much. You mean the user defined, user location, user size set temp tables? The ones you individually create for each DB, The ones you can't even create in MS-SQl because good ole MS takes care of that for you - and it SHARES the temp space with all those 32,000 databases on the server?
• Only one Oracle DB per server. He mentions this several times, and I haveno idea how he came to that conclusion. (?)
• Oracle can't drop tables/truncate ones that have certain restraints. Yes, that's why the restraints are put there. Whenever I drop a table in MS-SQL I think of Windows9x and how you can remove the entire System directory while the OS is still running. Great feature! Wish Oracle would do that! not
• Oracle is single threaded? yes, you can stop ONE oracle database at a time. SQL forces you to stop ALL DB on the server at the same time! Doh! Maybe you should stick to one DB per server for MS-SQL :)
• the 'not getting SQL results in real time' had me cracking up. You'd think by the 2000th version, MS would have gotten around to adding the SPOOL command. Talk about no feedback during execution, in MS-SQL you can't even see what's going on, can't log it, nothing. So far the best replacment is to run CMD as an external executbale and pipe text to a log file. Pathetic. -can't use IF in DDL? Never tried it to be honest. When I use DDL to make tables, databases, etc I know precisely what I want, using IF statements, how could you control the structure of your database? You can't use RANDOM to generate random table names either, what a bummer!

There are some things I like in MS-SQL that aren't part of Sybase SQL - isqlw (aka Query analyser) is one of them, it's a very nice tool for hacking out SQL. It also steps through your code and tells you where the slow parts are, breaks it down (Profiler, MS calls it) very nice and easy. - easy backups, jobs, agents and replication. (These things are all easy to set up, for SIMPLE operations. But when you try to do more diffcult things, the wizards fail you and your stuck...then you wish you had Oracle...)

Other than that, Oracle is stronger, more detailed, more flexible than MS-SQL in virutally every way.

JKL "Bill Long" <bill_at_longboys.net> wrote in message news:3b27909f$1_2_at_news.newzpig.com...
> I came across this link in the sybase group.
> http://www.talusmusic.com/BrainTools/Pages/DOF.html
>
> Could some of you oracle gurus respond to this? I am an intermediate
 Oracle
> guy and pretty light on the sybase side. Lots of the remarks this guy
 makes
> are not even worth reading, but some others appear to be valid points. I
> think he may be talking about an older version of oracle.
>
> Anyway, I would be interested in hearing feedback of some of you studs who
> use both oracle and sybase.
>
>
> Bill
>
>
Received on Wed Jun 13 2001 - 15:39:01 CDT