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

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

From: DA Morgan <>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 08:56:32 -0800
Message-ID: <>

Tony Rogerson wrote:

> The whole point of the discussion is based on your unwillingness to
> accept a) Oracle can deadlock and b) the feature is now available in
> SQL Server that allows us to code for Writers no longer blocking
> readers.

You are correct that one can force a deadlock in Oracle. But to do so requires one to violate best practices and ignore built-in functionality.

Does SQL Server 2005 allow writing code where writers no longer block readers: Absolutely. Have you monitored the use of resources when using that functionality? Have you looked at how it is being done?

Do you have entirely too much CPU and I/O sitting idle?

> You are just being stupid now because you cannot back up any of your
> statements.

This may come as a complete shock to you Tony but you are posting in c.d.o.server and we really do not need a flame war. If you can not confine yourself to civilized discourse please leave.

The point is not, and should not be, whether Microsoft, after spending years and millions in marketing dollars criticizing Oracle's MVCC has now duplicated its functionality. The question should be an analysis point-by-point of the capabilities of both the two products and the operating systems on which they can reside.

SQL Server Enterprise Edition has perhaps 10% of the overall functionality of Oracle Enterprise Edition and far less than comes capability than is in Oracle's Standard Edition. Any time you doubt this feel free to build a RAC cluster and the list of differences is nearly endless. Heck make it easy on yourself ... build a sequence, or a BEFORE INSERT TRIGGER.

So lets cut to the chase. You have two products for the same marketplace of which one runs on all major operating systems and hardware platforms from all vendors and has a wide variety of implemented capabilities and you have a second that runs on only one company's operating systems and has a limited subset of the capabilities. Other than price, if that is even an issue why choose the damaged tool? The only reasons I can think of are that (1) the IT team is unqualified/incapable of learning Oracle or (2) they are just looking for a souped-up version of MS Access.

A few years back I was brought in as a consultant to help a startup company in Redmond Washington. The founders Microsoft millionaires and had prviously been members of the team that managed the development of the Jet engine. I walked into their shop and saw Solaris and Linux ... Windows was only running at the reception desk. Why did they retain me? To help them decide between Oracle and DB2. That should tell you a lot.

Daniel A. Morgan
(replace x with u to respond)
Received on Wed Feb 22 2006 - 10:56:32 CST

Original text of this message