Re: What's wrong with SQL Server?

But from the web site

http://www.talussoftware.com/DBPowerSuite

I can see a lot of problems (Facts 1 and Facts 2) in Oracle compared to SQL/Sybase.

Morover, SQLServer is faster than Oracle/DB2

http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_perf_results.asp

Franklin <member29243_at_dbforums.com> wrote:

> From this link:

> http://searchdatabase.techtarget.com/tip/1,289483,sid13_gci834319,00.ht-
> ml

> In SQL Server, the DBA has no "real" control over sorting and cache
> memory allocation. The memory allocation is decided only globally in the
> server properties memory folder, and that applies for ALL memory and not
> CACHING, SORTING, etc.

> In SQL Server, all pages (blocks) are always 8k and all extents are
> always 8 pages (64k). This means you have no way to specify larger
> extents to ensure contiguous space for large objects.

> In SQL Server, no range partitioning of large tables and indexes. In
> Oracle, a large 100 GB table can be seamlessly partitioned at the
> database level into range partitions. For example, an invoice table can
> be partitioned into monthly partitions. Such partitioned tables and
> partitioned indexes give performance and maintenance benefits and are
> transparent to the application.

> There is no partitioning in SQL Server.

> There are no bitmap indexes in SQL Server.

> There are no reverse key indexes in SQL Server.

> There are no function-based indexes in SQL Server.

> There is no star query optimization in SQL Server.

> --
> Posted via http://dbforums.com
Received on Sat Jun 14 2003 - 10:50:46 CDT