Re: MS SQL Server Evaluation

simmons_mark_at_yahoo.com (Mark) wrote in message news:<5366fb41.0403111512.43ee93de_at_posting.google.com>...

Can anyone tell me how you can address scale issues in SQL Server? For instance, in Oracle I would be looking at Partitioning. In SQL Server, would I have to create many tables with a view on top of them to achieve something similiar? Is the SQL Server optimizer smart enough to prune? Is there any concept of parallel query in SQL Server?

I could probably look some of this up...but if someone would like to speak to it, that would be great.

Thanks,
Dave

> I'm pretty opened minded about database engines. I've worked on
> Sybase, SQL Server, Informix XPS, and Oracle implementations over the
> years.
>
> Recently, I attended the first day of a "SQL Server for Oracle DBA's"
> class at Microsoft Headquarters here in Dallas. I went to this class
> because I hadn't logged into a SQL Server since about 1994, and I was
> curious what had changed in all that time. I have to say that I was
> REALLY surprised how far behind SQL Server is in functionality when
> you compare it to Oracle.
>
> For example, they only have about 3 or 4 of the index types that are
> available for an Oracle DBA. They don't even have bitmap indexes.
> Can you believe that?
>
> The only thing I heard that was good was that they had moved the code
> from processes to threads in the last 10 years. They've also written
> some pretty cool GUI tools.
>
> Their trace facility beats Oracle, but that's no big deal. It does
> have a cool feature where you can take a trace from one instance and
> play it back on another instance.
>
> However, almost all of the advanced features that are available in
> Oracle, you won't find in SQL Server. Don't even look for anything
> like RAC.
>
> Just for fun, go compare the difference between Oracle Standard
> Edition vs. Oracle Enterprise Edition. After that, take a look at the
> difference between SQL Server Standard Edition vs. SQL Server
> Enterprise Edition. It's very plain to see that they don't have any
> advanced functionality to offer, so instead they talk about the max
> numbers of CPU's and the maximum amount of memory you are allowed to
> address.
>
> I'm not saying that SQL Server is a bad engine. In fact, it would
> probably work almost as well (with a little work), anywhere you might
> consider Oracle Standard Edition. It's kind of like the low budget
> cars you see that have that 100,000 mile warranty. On the other hand,
> Oracle Standard Edition seems like a Toyota and the Enterprise Edition
> is similar to a Lexus.
>
> Just an FYI to the group...
Received on Thu Mar 11 2004 - 23:12:12 CST