Re: What's wrong with SQL Server?

CSC wrote:

> 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.
>

While potentially valid in certain circumstances, a number of these are 'grasping at straws' facts.

For example - the first fact in 'Fact 1' about storing numbers in IEEE format, while potentially true within a very restricted framework, is useless when looking at multiple architectures. Such minor issues such as endian storage will impact the possible performance of an IEEE stored number. Oracle's sol;ution happens to be satisfactory across a large number of architectures without change and the performance is more than satisfactory. For some situations that is more important than the propellor-head considerations discussed. (I used to pride myself as a propellor head, till I realized that the only thing it did was provide wind for my own brain.)

> Morover, SQLServer is faster than Oracle/DB2
>
> http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_perf_results.asp
>

This week. Look through the history of the TPCs and you will see that all the vendors bounce to the top for a short time. So this discussion is meaningless.

if TCP stuff is the most important factor to your application, you wont use ANY commercial database - you'll write your own. Received on Sat Jun 14 2003 - 11:52:22 CDT