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

Tony Rogerson wrote:
> Personally I think I've gone far enough with this thread, we can debate all
> day; but, your answer highlights one area where SQL Server gives a
> significantly better implementation - CLR; that also goes to answers a
> previous comment from a poster that SQL Server will always be behind Oracle,
> CLR is just one instance where it isn't behind but leaps ahead.

I'd suspect, but like to see real examples with real tests that show it, that you may be correct that Microsoft's Integration of a Microsoft Core technology in a Microsoft product on a Microsoft platform is in advance of Oracle's integration of that same Microsoft core technology.

I'd disagree with you about CLR showing that SQL Server was leaps ahead though. You introduced the CLR integration as an example of database extensibility by incorporating the programmability and usability of the CLR into SQL2005. Oracle has supported just such an environment right within the database since Oracle 8i (which my memory says shipped in the 1999 timeframe). It isn't a Microsoft environment, its java, but it has exactly the same advantages (and to my mind disadvantages) as putting .Net in the database and has been available for half a decade or so.

-- 

Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
http://www.orawin.info/services/