Re: Oracle versus Sqlserver

From: Stefan <sroesch3_at_attbi.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 07:32:15 GMT
Message-ID: <36v18.39905$Vq.360496@rwcrnsc53>

Hi Keith,

sorry too many errors and false statements in this mail. Most fo your information is dated and related to older releases.

Stefan

Keith Boulton wrote:

> 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 Thu Jan 17 2002 - 01:32:15 CST