Re: MS SQL Server Evaluation

"Dave" <davidr21_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:8244b794.0403112112.32e825b0_at_posting.google.com...
> 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...

I think their answer is "Federated databases" . You split the table to different machines and create a view that joins the whole thing together. When you need to scale more you get an additional machine to the Federated group and rearrange the data to partition the data across the machines and recreate the views. OUCH!
Jim Received on Thu Mar 11 2004 - 23:16:49 CST