Re: Oracle vs Sybase (clarification please)

needs pretty powerful (expensive) hardware to run on - yep, I feel GOOD, the next guy that comes up to buy me PC, I can quote you by saying it runs Oracle, this a pretty darn powerful machine I have, my P11-300 with a 6 gig hard drive and 128meg of ram.

Makes me feel real good.

maxeasy wrote:

> I wouldn't say MS-SQL and Sybase are the same.
> It was, actually, up until Sybase version 10. But now it's two different
> things.
>
> I work with both Oracle and Sybase and my experience says the following:
>
> If you want to spend LOTS of money, go for Oracle. IT's powerful, has lots
> of features and toys,
> but needs pretty powerful (expensive) hardware to run on, and be babysited
> by dedicated DBA.
> Same performance level with Sybase, could be reached using LESS powerful
> hardware,
> and no babysitting will be needed at all.
> This makes me think Oracle had to pay some really "high price" for its
> features.
> Staying still with packed decimal could be one of them....
> (Really, go try to change the heart of this monster!!! It's not that easy)
> .....
>
> "Jon K" <jon.dotonline_at_excitedot.com> wrote in message
> news:FbQV6.27472$G45.1329398_at_news1.onlynews.com...
> > 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 - 23:20:09 CDT