Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid |
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: Database or store to handle 30 Mb/sec and 40,000 inserts/sec
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.
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 BoyerReceived on Fri Feb 17 2006 - 19:52:02 CST