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

Tony Rogerson wrote:
> I guess I'm going to have a lot of consultancy then (great, be able to
> afford a new ferrari to sit alongside my testarrossa), having said that
> Oracle DBA's get paid more - I suppose because the product is more difficult
> to manage and implement.

Actually, that is completely false. SQL Server dba job ads far outnumber
those for Oracle DBAs in Australia and a number of other places. And the
pay levels are higher for SQLServer DBAs. Mainly because there are very few of them and demand pushes up prices. Whereas Oracle DBAs are five-a-bob with the folks from India jumping in.

But I guess that old chestnut about Oracle DBAs being expensive and Oracle being hard to manage is another little bit of urban myth perpetuated
by the usual crap Microslop marketing, isn't it?

> The versioning stuff is used in a lot of places now - triggers, online
> indexes creation/rebuild and the new isolation.

It can't be used in a lot of places, you idiot: the product has just been released and the vast majority of SS sites are still running the old version. Sorry, but you're exceeding the marks with your constant marketing bullshit.

> If there where performance problems or scalability problems it will have
> come out by now judging by the 100'000s of people who have tested the
> product not to mention the couple of thousand who work on the product in MS
> itself, does Oracle Express or the product itself have that exposure,
> judging by independant press I guess not.

Judging by independent press, I guess yes...

> Yes, but who am I to argue with people who have probably not even installed
> or used, let along seen SQL Server 2005.

Dead wrong.

> That reminds me The Simpsons is about to start, I wonder what homer is up
> to......
>

Dunno. I don't follow tv shows glorifying losers and mediocrity. Received on Sun Feb 19 2006 - 17:22:02 CST