Re: Newbie's Oracle 9i impression: it sucks

"George Barbour" <gbarbour_at_csc.com> wrote in message news:<3ce9faac$1_at_pull.gecm.com>...
> > One more point, there are many of you Oracle folks who like to bash MS
> SQL, and
> > as a MS SQL DBA, I do NOT go ballistic when people bash MS SQL in this
> room.
> > You guys need to keep an open mind. Perhaps many of you should learn MS
> SQL
> > since it is CLEARLY taking over marketshare from Oracle in W2K
> environment.
> >
> I am both an Oracle and MS SQL Dba, have been for many years. I use these
> products at my workplace for the company that employs me, if they didn't pay
> me I would not use them. I for one have no emotional ties to any piece of
> technology. My emotional ties lie entirely with my family. If you believe
> that it is important for you that one company is making more money, or
> taking more market share than another, then I suggest you ask yourself the
> question of where your loylties lie; with a multi-billion, multi-national
> corporation, (who quite frankly don't give a jot about whether you exist or
> not.) or with people closer to your home.
> Is my reply rational enough for you?
>

That's how I feel too. Having worked with Sybase/SQL Server and now exclusively Oracle, I will not be reluctant to work with SQL Server again if I feel it's going to out grow Oracle. But Oracle is much richer in functionality and there are many ways you can make it work for you. SQL Server is perfectly OK for small to mid-size applications which is not required to handle a high level of concurrency or oversized transactions. For more complex applications Oracle gives you a better chance to succeed down the road. Databases need to be tuned to maintain a good performance level, and tunability is one of the areas where Oracle is better than almost anyone else. I remember that, at SQL Server 7 production launch, Ballmer claimed SQL Server is self-tunable and they even brought a witness whom I don't remember which company he worked for. Well, I don't hear much of that claim anymore. I also heard MS sales people claim that SQL Server is capable of supporting thousands of concurrent connections (not transactions), but who can not? Stuff like this is going to cause some confusions.

> George Barbour.
> Scotland.
Received on Tue May 21 2002 - 13:49:03 CDT