Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: Database or store to handle 30 Mb/sec and 40,000 inserts/sec

Re: Database or store to handle 30 Mb/sec and 40,000 inserts/sec

From: Galen Boyer <galen_boyer_at_yahoo.com>
Date: 17 Feb 2006 19:52:02 -0600
Message-ID: <uslqh9scq.fsf@rcn.com>


On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, tonyrogerson_at_sqlserverfaq.com wrote:

>> My biggest issue with this is that SQLServer has just implemented
>> this.  I have no idea how well it works, and I have no trust that it
>> actually is a solid implementation.  Oracle's fundamental
>> architecture, in place since God knows what version, has always
>> supported the fact that writers don't block readers and readers don't
>> block writers.  Heck, even as you show, SQLServer tries to implement
>> both sides of the house with different levels.  I just don't see how,
>> in such a late release, that anybody is going to believe they got it
>> right, while we are 100% certain Oracle did get that right.

>
> We can say that about anything though, including Oracle Express which
> I think is in beta still?
>
> Microsoft SQL Server had a massive beta program with hundreds of
> thousands of participants and it was around 3 years long, they also
> had a very large number of big customers go live with 2005 at RTM,
> that includes some big banks like Nationwide here in the UK.
>
> I've no doubt Oracle got it right with the way they designed their
> engine, in the same way I think Microsoft and IBM are right in the way
> they designed theirs too - different ideas and implementations don't
> necessarily mean they are wrong,

At the time, Sybase was king, and MS saw fit to invest in that. That, in no way makes it the right implementation.

Writers block readers and readers block writers in SQLServer. There is no getting around this fundamental issue and because of it SQL Server will always be fundamentally a completely inferior product.

> the proof is in the user base, NUMBER OF INSTALLS using the product
> which is the target.

How the hell is that ever the measure of the quality of a product? It is a measure of the power of the marketing department, period. Many people buy Oracle because of the marketing hoopla instead of their needs. How many companies need Oracle? Not nearly as many as have it installed. MySql or PostGre would serve them quite well.

> If the product is crap then nobody would use it - would they?

Look, SQL Server is not crap, by any means. It is a very fine database. But, we are not discussing that. We are discussing whether it is as good as Oracle, or, from the thread, the latest feature set. SS can handle enterprise level database needs. It is a fine solution. But, that in now way, hides the fact that fundamentally, Oracle is a far superior database server than SQLServer is and will ever be, because of fundamental ways the two started out.

-- 
Galen Boyer
Received on Fri Feb 17 2006 - 19:52:02 CST

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US