Re: ORACLE or SQL SERVER (MS) ?

"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3f94fba3$0$246$ed9e5944_at_reading.news.pipex.net>...
> Hi
>
> The choice of which database system to learn will to some extent be
> determined on why you wish to learn it. In general there is a lot of
> relational theory that is universal and writing good SQL and doing correct
> design is not linked to the vendor of the database system. There will be
> system specific features that will improve performance on a given RDBMS, but
> the knowledge of how proprietary this is is important.
>
> In general I think that SQL Server is the better system regarding ease of
> setup and the hardware required to run the system and would therefore have

    Actually when it comes to lowend hardware, Oracle and MSSQL are more of an even heat. Both can be deployed on meagre hardware if your thruput requirements are similarly meagre.

    However, Oracle will probably scale much better should your needs be more than trivial. Oracle runs on machines with as many as 105 cpus, Oracle has more transparent clustering, and MSSQL doesn't support table/index partitioning.

     Storage and memory requirements will be similar for both products. You won't be able to get away with skimping on the disk hardware just because it's a Microsoft database. OTOH, Oracle can run on the same Dell/Compaq hardware that msSQL uses. Just run Linux rather than Solaris.

> the edge, but if you are looking for multiplatform capabilities then Sybase,
> DB2 or Oracle may be alternatives to consider.
[deletia] Received on Tue Oct 21 2003 - 21:23:50 CDT