Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: MS SQL Server Evaluation

Re: MS SQL Server Evaluation

From: Burt Peltier <>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 00:06:01 -0600
Message-ID: <plc4c.25737$>

When/if sqlserver adds bitmap indexes, it will of course be a M$ "Innovation".

But, seriously, they do have some slick interfaces.

It seems Oracle still needs to put more work into GUI Tools.

But, then again, you can always buy a version of TOAD (as 1 example) of a slick GUI interface to Oracle.

"Mark" <> wrote in message

> 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 Fri Mar 12 2004 - 00:06:01 CST

Original text of this message