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

I think what you are talking about here have more to do with implementation and design differences rather than missing features. I was talking about some things that can be done in one database just flat out cannot be done in another in any way.

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

I am not sure what kind of tools you are using. I have no problems with mixed case. Even it is a problem, it is just a matter of style. It would be silly to say Windows file name being not case-sensitive a missing feature.

benbrugman_at_onbekend.nl (Ben Brugman) wrote in message news:<3ca9d8d1.32919890_at_news.nl.uu.net>...
> 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 Thu Apr 04 2002 - 11:59:25 CST