Re: ORACLE or SQL SERVER (MS) ?

"Hulse" <hulse_kevin_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message news:16926526.0310211823.7aaf98d_at_posting.google.com...
> "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]

shhh Received on Tue Oct 21 2003 - 22:14:26 CDT