Re: Oracle versus Microsoft Sqlserver 2000

SQL Server has a few advantages over Oracle on the low end.

1. Price-- Its alot cheaper than Oracle. There are alot of lower end applications out there that do not need what Oracle has to offer. If your just gonna do a simple inventory OLTP with a few screens to access it and only a few users, you really dont need to pay for Oracle. If your running a business you have to watch your costs if you want to stay in business. Small businesses really cant afford Oracle.
2. Though I do not know this from experience SQL Server and Sybase are much easier for a novice and junior person to use. Doesn't SQL Server have lots of wizards etc... On the surface this makes it look like a better product. As I said if your on the low or middle end this may have benefits. They dont have to pay one of us to come out there and do it for them. However, if someone specifically tells you that Sybase or SQL Server are better products than Oracle they really dont know anything. Its one of those benchmarks that you can use to judge someones technical knowledge.

One advantage Americans having in the Oracle business is the size of the US government. The US budget this year is about $2 trillion. I think the only country that has a bigger GDP than that is Japan. So that would make the US government the third largest economy in the world. They love Oracle... and after 9/11 many agencies are only hiring US citizens even for unclassified projects.

Ryan Gaffuri

"Phh" <porushh_at_bigpond.com> wrote in message news:<2p3c8.6866$wG3.42029_at_newsfeeds.bigpond.com>...
> Oracle versus Microsoft Sqlserver 2000
> SQL SERVER TECHNICAL LIMITATIONS
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> By Faulkner, Kent (kent.faulkner_at_trane.com) USA
> Updated by Havewala, Porus (porushh_at_bigpond.com) Australia
>
> 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
> multiple platforms such as Windows, all flavours of Unix from vendors
> such as Ibm, Sun, Digital, HP, Sequent, etc. and VAX-VMS as well as MVS.
> The multi-platform nature of Oracle makes it a true enterprise solution.
>
> 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
> dont block readers". This is possible without compromising data
> integrity because Oracle will dynamically re-create a read-consistent
> image for a reader of any requested data that has been changed but not
> yet committed. In other words, the reader will see the data as it was
> before
> the writer began changing it (until the writer commits). SQL Server's
> locking scheme is much simpler (less mature) and will result in a lot
> of delays/waits in a heavy OLTP environment.
>
> 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.
>
> 3. Potential of long uncommited transactions HALTING database activity
>
> In sql server 2K, a long uncommited transaction can stop other
> transactions which queue behind it in the transaction log, and
> this can stop all activity on the database,
>
> Whereas in Oracle, if there is a long uncommited transaction, only
> the transaction itself will stop when it runs out of rollback
> space, because of the use of different rollback segments for
> transactions.
>
> 4. PERFORMANCE and TUNING
>
> a. No control of sorting (memory allocation) in Sql Server.
> Oracle can fully control the sort area size and allows it
> to be set by the Dba.
>
> b. No control over SQL Caching (memory allocation) in Sql Serv.
> This is controllable in Oracle.
>
> c. No control over storage/space management to prevent fragmentation in
> Sql Serv. 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. In Oracle, this is
> fully configurable.
>
> d. No range partioning of large tables and indexes in Sql Server,
> whereas 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.
>
> e. No Log miner facility in Sql Server. Oracle 8i and 9i supply a
> Log Miner which enables inspection of archived redo logs. This comes
> free with the database. But in the case of Sql Server, external products
> from other companies have to be purchased to do this important task.
>
> f. A Sql-Server dba claimed that fully qualifying the name in Sql Server
> code would lead to performance gains of 7% to 10%. There are no
> dictionary
> performance problems like that in Oracle. Oracle would have some gains
> if it fully qualified all names - say 0.01 percent. This actally
> shows the difference in the internal database technology between
> Oracle and MS.
>
> Oracle seems to better access its internal dictionary and resolve
> names, unlike Sql server.
>
> 5. MISSING OBJECT TYPES IN SQL SERVER
> a. No public or private synonyms
> b. no independent sequences
> c. no packages ie. collection of procedures and functions.
>
> 6. PROGRAMMING
>
> a. Significant extensions to the ANSI SQL-92 standard in Sql Server,
> which means converting applications to a different database later
> will be a challenge (code re-write).
>
> b. Sql Server has no inbuilt JAVA database engine as in Oracle.
> In Oracle, Java classes can be loaded and executed in the database
> itself, thus adding the database's security and scalability to
> Java applications.
>
> c. In Sql Server, stored Procedures are not compiled until
> executed (overhead). In Oracle, packages and procs/functions
> are compiled before execution. Also, in Oracle 9i it is possible
> to translate Pl/Sql into C code and then compile/link the code,
> which gives very good performance gains for numeric itensive
> operations.
>
> d. In Sql server, there is no ability to read/write from external
> files from a stored procedure. Oracle has this ability.
>
> e. Oracle Sql and Pl/Sql are more powerful and can do things better than
> Microsoft Transact-Sql. Try to sum up a column by each month, and show
> the totals for the month, in Sql Server you do it in a complicated way
> in T-Sql by grouping on strings, in Oracle it takes one sql statement
> grouping by the trunc(<datecolumn>,'month') function. A Sql Server
> manager who saw this difference said "This method in Oracle is more
> intuitive, it understands the dates, the method in Sql Server does not."
>
> f. In Sql Server, you cannot issue a "create or replace" for either
> procedures or views, in Oracle you can. This one facility simplifies
> code writing, since in Sql Server the procedure or view must be
> dropped first if present and then recreated ie. 2 commands, in
> Oracle there is no need - a single command "create or replace" is
> enough.
>
> g. In Oracle, a procedure/function/package/view is marked as invalid
> if a dependant object changes. In Ms Sql there is no concept of an
> invalid procedure, it will run but give unexpected results.
> The former is more suitable for change control and preventing
> unexpected errors.
>
> h. A recompile reuses the code that is in the Oracle database,
> the actual command is "alter procedure <procedure name> compile".
> This is applicable to procedures/functions/packages/views.
> This concept of recompiling is not there in MS Sql server
> where you have to resubmit the whole code if you want to
> recompile a procdure.
>
>
> 7. CLUSTER TECHNOLOGY
> In clustering technology, Oracle is light years ahead, since
> Sql server has nothing like Oracle Parallel server - 2 instances
> acting on the SAME data in active-active configurations. And with
> 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
> contention between the instances. This diskless contention
> handling is called Cache Fusion and it means for the first
> time, any application can be placed in a cluster without
> any changes, and it scales upwards by just adding another
> machine to the cluster. Microsoft has nothing like this.
>
> 8. Oracle has 14 independant security evaluations, Microsoft Sql
> Server has one.
>
> 9. Sql server magazines and internet articles of the magazine
> are only available with paid subscription. Whereas, Oracle
> has given its magazine free for many years, all articles are
> free on the internet, and the Oracle Technical network (OTN)
> is also free on the internet.
>
> 10.Some people say Microsoft Sql Server tools, like Enterprise
> manager, are easy to use. Oracle Enterprise Manager is a huge
> tool and seems daunting to unexperienced people. This is
> true to an extent, however ease of use cannot be compared
> with the many features in Oracle, and its industrial-level
> strength.
>
>
> SUMMARY.
> SQL Server is clearly positioned between MS-ACCESS and ORACLE in terms of
> functionality, performance, and scalability. It makes a work group level
> solution (small number of users with small amount of data). At the
> departmental level it is okay.
>
> Oracle is much more advanced and has more to offer for larger applications
> with both OLTP and Data Warehouse applications. Its new clustering features
> are ideal for Application service providers (ASPs) on the internet
> who can now start with a cluster of 2 small servers and grow by just
> adding a server when they need to. Besides, Oracle's multi-platform
> capability makes it the most convincing argument for an enterprise.
>
> Footnote:
> Oracle is the first commercial Sql database and is 25 years old in 2002,
> ie. it has been around since 1977. Larry Ellision the founder of Oracle
> has been championing the Sql language before there was any company around
> like Microsoft.
Received on Thu Mar 07 2002 - 15:15:42 CST