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: Mark <>
Date: 12 Mar 2004 11:21:56 -0800
Message-ID: <>

I'm surprised at all of the follow-up comments.

As someone posted, if all you need is a simple database that uses b-tree indexes, I think you could use SQL Server without very many problems.

On the other side...

Personally, at one time or another, I think I've used almost every index/table type that Oracle has. Plus, I just think that Oracle is the best engine out there right now. So, unless $$$ is really an issue, I'd prefer to stick with Oracle.

I think Oracle needs to do a better job of explaining where their strengths are at. I wasn't aware how far ahead they were until I went to this class. It was so bad, that we had to stop saying, "Well, Oracle has..." in fear that they might ask us to leave.

Mark Simmons
Sr. Oracle DBA
Sabre-Holdings, Southlake, TX (Mark) wrote in message news:<>...
> 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 - 13:21:56 CST

Original text of this message