Re: Oracle versus MS Sqlserver 2000: Technical Comparison of the Features in the two databases

"Howard J. Rogers" wrote:

>
> > 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.
>
> Have I introduced you to PGA_AGGREGATE_TARGET yet?? It's the way of the
> future, so this particular point is moot.

Unless you know something I don't I disagree with your conclusion. PGA_AGGREGATE_TARGET allows automation: It doesn't force it. From what I have seen Oracle is making is possible for DBA's to choose their path from among two. One path is for a SQL Server type ease of management but the other seems to be
provding the ability for hands-on control.

> > b. No control over SQL Caching (memory allocation) in Sql Serv.
> > This is controllable in Oracle.
>
> This is like saying apples don't taste like Oranges! SQL Server grabs
> whatever it can from the server, and dynamically aquires it and releases
> it as needed. Pretty neat, actually.

True. But lets see them try that with an operating system they don't own.

> Come on: sell Oracle on its merits (of which it has an abundance), not on
> a pretty naff comparison with A. N. Other product, which doesn't compare
> legitimately in any case. And an absence of obvious propaganda would also
> make more sense.

On this I completely agree.

> > f. A Sql-Server dba claimed that fully qualifying the name of an object
> > in Sql Server code would lead to performance gains of 7% to 10%.
> > There are no dictionary performance problems like that in Oracle.
>
> Clearly, you've never had a plethora of public synonyms. There *can be*
> performance problems related to such dictionary issues.

Lets not turn an MS bashing into an Oracle bashing. As you said earlier bad DBAs and
developers can do bad things. A plethora of public synonyms is just an example of the obvious.

> > 5. MISSING OBJECT TYPES IN SQL SERVER
> >
> > a. No public or private synonyms
> >
> > b. no independent sequences
>
> This really annoys me, frankly. Its apples and oranges time again. Why
> don't you save yourself some time and just post a message saying 'SQL
> Server is crap'? I actually like the SQL Server 'identity'
> auto-incrementing data type. I wish Oracle had something similar. The lack
> of sequences in SQL Server is not a 'missing object type' if you consider
> that they have something else which does the job very nicely, and rather
> more simply than the Oracle equivalent.

Unless you are striving to create systems that serialize why would you prefer autonumbering
to sequences? Can you reverse number with autonumering? Autonumber with only multiples
of a seed number? Truncate a table, reload it, and restart numbering at any number you choose?
Use a single numbering to sequence inserts into multiple tables?

There is a lot more to sequences than just pulling a number of the top of a stack.

> Define your business problem. Define your business environment. Select the
> right tool for the job. Sometimes it will be SQL Server, sometimes Oracle.
> You shouldn't get slated for making the appropriate choice in the
> appropriate circumstances.
>
> You should get slated for bringing "religion" into what should be a cool,
> calculated evaluation.
>
> HJR
Amen.

Daniel Morgan Received on Mon Mar 10 2003 - 10:27:50 CST