Wow! do you both work for a chip firm? Seems like you have chips on your
shoulders.
Jim
"Keith Boulton" <kboulton_at_ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Zdp18.31408$Hg7.3193703_at_news11-gui.server.ntli.net...
> 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 - 20:59:22 CST
