Re: What's wrong with SQL Server?

DBPowerSuite sounds like a Sybase Advertisement.

The tpc.org web site has misleading clustered results and it appears Oracle isn't even contributing much anymore.
- Misleading, because nobody in their right mind would use sqlserver clustering (manually must break up table data/rows between clusters!?) - no matter how good the performance is.
- I looked at "all" results and Oracle hasn't even contributed 1 this year (for at least OLTP) - not sure what is this about? Was tpc bought out by M$ ?

There is some truth in the "sybase ad", in that some people buy Oracle because Oracle is the market leader. But, Oracle didn't get there by accident or something. They got there with a better product than sybase, which of course, sqlserver is based on (or at least was based on initially).

-- 

"CSC" <jcheong_at_cooper.com.hk> wrote in message
news:bcfg8m$5lq1_at_imsp212.netvigator.com...


> 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