Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid |
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: Oracle versus MS Sqlserver 2000: Technical Comparison of the Features in the two databases
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 08:27:50 +0000, DA Morgan wrote:
> "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.
You must have missed the phrase "the way of the *future*". IE, of course you have two ways of doing it *for now*. What's the betting that in version 13.6 sort_area_size will be a deprecated parameter, and in version 15.2 it will be obsoleted?
No, I don't know anything more about this than you do. It's merely wild speculation. I'm also wildly speculating that automatic undo management will be compulsory around version 11.6, and ASSM will be compulsory about the same time.
>> > 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.
I wasn't Oracle bashing (I wouldn't have a job for long if I did!). I was rebutting the claim that 'there are no dictionary performance problems' in Oracle. There *can* be. Yes, it takes dodgy design to do it. But that minor qualification wasn't being made by the original lose.... sorry, poster.
>
>> > 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.
Absolutely. But I'd like the choice. When I *am* in 'pull number off the top of a stack' mode, the identity data type would do just fine. If I want things to go sideways and backwards, I'd chose sequences.
Is there a serialization on identities? Yes. Could they not create a cached identity, just as we have cached sequences? Yes. If they chose.
For now, so long as I aware of the performance issue, I'd like the opportunity to use an identity in Oracle if one were available.
Regards
HJR
Received on Mon Mar 10 2003 - 12:01:17 CST