Re: ORACLE or SQL SERVER (MS) ?

> 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.

I would disagree with that, although I have not done any benchmarks, my experience of Oracle on the same windows platform is that SQL Server is that SQL server is the more performant. When you start looking at the User tools then Oracle with all the overhead and clunkiness of Java means that SQL Server wins on productivity and reliability too.

I know there are good third party tools available that will level the score, and IMO the need for these with Oracle is higher!

> 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.

Well this was way beyond the scope of poster!!

> 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.

Oracle on Linux would be a good choice. Whether the poster would want to dual boot or buy another machine is different approach.

>
> > the edge, but if you are looking for multiplatform capabilities then
Sybase,
> > DB2 or Oracle may be alternatives to consider.
> [deletia]

John Received on Wed Oct 22 2003 - 03:07:50 CDT