Re: Which one is better, Oracle or SQL server - clear answer !

Guido Stepken <stepken_at_little-idiot.de> wrote

> Oracle hasn't really made it perfect, because a write transaction can
> block another writing transaction.

Clarify. No write blocks another write, unless you are refering to dealing with non-async i/o file systems and kernels. In which case it is an operating system limitation and Oracle's.

As for one transaction locking the actual rows (no page locking ever in Oracle) to be updated, thus preventing another transaction from changing (not reading!) those same rows.. that is *EXACTLY* how locking is suppose to work in order to GUARANTEE data integrity.

I fail so see any qualification in your statement that "Oracle hasn't really made it perfect". Thus bs it is.

As for the thread topic. Whether Oracle or SQL-Server is better, just does not depend on technical features. That is stupid and very unrealistic.

Which database is "better" is determined WHERE and HOW it will be used. It depends on the business requirements, budgets, existing infrastructure, SLAs, staff, future growth and a myriad of other factors.. which is UNIQUE to every site.

Anyone getting into a pissing contest about technical features in this regard, is simply showing A TOTAL LACK OF REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE in dealing with RDBMS in the business/corporate world. And you will be exactly the type of person that I will not be interested in employing.

Wake up call. Businesses use RDBMS for providing business solutions. Not for wearing raybans because their RDBMS is technically kewler than the competition.

--
Billy