Re: L:ist - Can do/do better in MS SQL than Oracle

On 28 Mar 2002 12:52:44 -0800, tlam15_at_hotmail.com (tingl) wrote:

Well I have seen a few things you can't do in Oracle which you can in SQL-server.

Use serializable and expect the transactions te be serializable. (Yes Oracle does prefent the phenomena's discribed in SQL-92, but I can come up with transactions which can not be serialized if run together on Oracle. And serializable means that there must be a garantee that all finished transactions should be serializable). example see the further on ##

Some SQL-92 syntax queries where outer and inner joins are used in one query could not be expressed in the Oracle syntax without going to a completely different query.

Oracle does not like mixed-case for tables and fields. (Lots of tools can not handle this).

I do not want to go into the discussion which is better, but there are differences between the two RDBMSses. And I expect that anything which can be done on the one can one way or the other be done on the other. But some things involve a lot of work in one RDBMS and hardly any work in the other. My guess is this works both ways.
(Try to implement a after/row trigger from Oracle in SQL-server).

ben brugman.

##
Please do not read on if you are not interrested in the serializability discussion. This has been handled before on in several discussion groups.

Serializable, standard example where the serializable of Oracle fails. Two accounts, with the business rule that the accounts together can not become sub zero. Withdrawels are done with writing extra information into the database (add a withdrawel row).

Sequence:
Set serializable
Start transaction
Read the amount available on the two accounts. See if there is enough money to do the withdrawel. Add the extra row for the withdrawel
Commit.

If this sequence is run concurrently (2 times) then it can result in a situation which can not happen if the sequence is run serialized (2 times).

For a more formal explenation see :
Making Sapshot Isolation Serializable
http://www.cs.umb.edu/~isotest/snaptest/snaptest.pdf

>Hi,
>
>I have worked with both SQL Server and Oracle. I have not seen
>anything you can do with SQL Server that can't be done in Oracle. The
>only advantage of SQL Server is ease of management and configuration.
>It requires little attention most of the time, but the trade off here
>is flexibility. With all things taken into consideration, I still
>prefer Oracle to SQL Server. The main reasons are portability and
>scalability. And most of all we do not want to be locked into any
>single vendor.
>
>
>Tony
>www.w3base.com
>

Ben Brugman Received on Tue Apr 02 2002 - 10:34:04 CST