Re: Oracle versus Sqlserver

I am an Oracle developer but:

>
> 1. Single platform dependancy.
>
> SQL Server is only operable on the Windows platform, and this is a major
> limitation for it to be an enterprise solution. Oracle is available on
No it isn't

> 2. Locking / concurrency
>
> SQL Server has no multi-version consistency model which means that
"writers
> block readers and readers block writers" to ensure data integrity. In
> contrast, with Oracle the rule is "readers dont block writers and writers
But sql server is considerably faster and in most cases you can design around this issue just like you can design around "snapshot too old"

> Also, SQL Server will escalate row locks to page level locks when too
many
> rows on a page are locked. This locks rows which are uninvolved in any
> updates for no good reason.

Not generally an issue, given it doesn't occur until > 10,000 rows. cf performance impact of oracle data block update

>
> 3. PERFORMANCE and TUNING
>
> a. No control of sorting (memory allocation)
But Oracles sorting algorithm is crap - ignore available memory when sorting.

>
> b. No control over SQL Caching (memory allocation)
Not sure if this is true

> c. No control over storage/space management to prevent fragmentation. All
> pages (blocks) are always 8k and all extents are always 8 pages (64k).
This
> means you have no way to specify larger extents to ensure contiguous
space
> for large objects.

Funny how oracle have moved to locally managed tablespaces. -> proof of performance impact

>
> d. No range partioning of large tables and indexes eg. in Oracle a large
> 100 GB table can be seamlessly partitioned at the database level into
range
> partitions, for eg. an invoice table can be partitioned into monthly
> partitions. Such partitioned tables and partitioned indexes give
> performance and maintenance benefits and are transparent to the
> application.

Useful for <1% of applications

> e. No Log miner facility. Oracle 8i and 9i supply a Log Miner which
> enables inspection of archived redo logs. This comes free with the
If only it didn't crash when you tried to use it!

>
> f. A Sql-Server dba claimed that fully qualifying the name in code
> would lead to performance gains of 7% to 10%. There are no dictionary
But from what base?
Irrelevant to stored procedures which is the recommended approach for sqlserver

> 4. MISSING OBJECT TYPES
> a. No public or private synonyms

Largely irrelevant given dbo

> b. no independent sequences

A pointless waste of resources

> c. no packages ie. collection of procedures and functions.
so?

> 5. PROGRAMMING
>
> a. Significant extensions to the ANSI SQL-92 standard which means
> converting
> applications to a different database later will be a challenge (code
> re-write).

Oracle is SO standard.

>
> b. No inbuilt JAVA database engine as in Oracle. In Oracle, Java classes
Welcome to the slowest common denominator. Please try to understand the point of n-tier architectures.

> c. Stored Procedures are not compiled until executed (overhead).
Are we talking about oracle or sqlserver here - given that neither are compiled?

>
> d. No ability to read/write from external files from a stored procedure.
Not true

> e. Oracle Sql and Pl/Sql are more powerful and can do things better than
> Microsoft Transact-Sql.

see n-tier architecture

> f. In Sql Server, you cannot issue a "create or replace" for either
big deal

> 6. CLUSTER TECHNOLOGY
> In clustering technology, Oracle is light years ahead, since
> Sql server has nothing like Oracle Parallel server - 2 instances
I'd like to spend more on the licence for a database feature than the combined cost of database and hardware please!

> the new version of Parallel Server in Oracle 9i, renamed as the
> Oracle real application cluster, there is diskless contention
> handling of read-read, read-write, write-read, and write-write
10 fucking years after any semi-compentent ape would have implemented it.

Please fuck off you retarded troll. Received on Wed Jan 16 2002 - 18:55:20 CST