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: Oracle licence question

Re: Oracle licence question

From: Tony Rogerson <tonyrogerson_at_sqlserverfaq.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 08:44:09 -0000
Message-ID: <dtrpo7$bkl$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk>


> What level is ANSI SQL compliance does Microsoft claim - can you provide a
> citation ?

ANSI 92 - check Books Online.

> Here's the published current salary costs of both sets of DBA's in the UK
> Oracle - http://www.itjobswatch.co.uk/jobs/uk/oracle.do
> SQL Server - http://www.itjobswatch.co.uk/jobs/uk/sql%20server%20dba.do
>
> There shows that there is less than a 3-13% differential between the min
> and max salary ranges. Hardly a lot higher at all.
>

Very clever Mark, but I think you really want to compare like for like, so you ought to compare Oracle DBA with SQL Server DBA (like for like) and you get a more accurate result, if you compare 'oracle' with 'sql server' its even worse....

DBA...
      Oracle Min/Max £40,073 £45,219

      SQL Server Min/Max £36,128 £40,846

Just search on product...

      Oracle                           £39,363 £46,026

      SQL Server Min/Max    £33,665 £38,797


Thats a big difference!

> http://www.theedison.com/research/gems/040401rdbmscmcs.pdf

I wonder who has commissioned the report? Looking at the detailed tasks it starts to get a bit interesting and bias toward Oracle starts to be shown, for instance; the set up and seperate service pack installation - counted as one and not broken down - mmmm.

I await the next report with interested and will also look for more bias, perhaps I will download your trial and try it for myself and write up the results as a whitepaper of my own!

Perhaps the savings the state are offset against the fact that SQL Server salaries are around 18-20% lower than that of Oracle - quoting your source too!

-- 
Tony Rogerson
SQL Server MVP
http://sqlserverfaq.com - free video tutorials


"Mark Townsend" <markbtownsend_at_comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:4400F6C5.8080203_at_comcast.net...

>
>>
>> What you mean - they use portable SQL as definied by the ANSI SQL
>> standard, something Oracle doesn't do very well! Come on guys, catch up!!
>> Talk about MS locking people in - LOL!
>
> What level is ANSI SQL compliance does Microsoft claim - can you provide a
> citation ?
>
>> One thing you need to watch is staffing, costs for Oracle staff here in
>> the UK are a lot higher than SQL Server ones, also, you tend to need
>> more; also, the SQL Server professional has a more rounded experience to
>> the business, often trained in Business Intelligence.
>
> Here's the published current salary costs of both sets of DBA's in the UK
> Oracle - http://www.itjobswatch.co.uk/jobs/uk/oracle.do
> SQL Server - http://www.itjobswatch.co.uk/jobs/uk/sql%20server%20dba.do
>
> There shows that there is less than a 3-13% differential between the min
> and max salary ranges. Hardly a lot higher at all.
>
> There is no evidence to suggest that managing Oracle requires anymore
> DBA's than managing SQL Server. Overall DBA counts within an organization
> are not comparable, as typically the Oracle DBA's are looking after more
> mission critical systems, and/or larger Data Warehouses, than the SQL
> Server counterparts. These systems also often have higher SLA
> requirements, which can translate into more than one shift of DBAs.
>
> And there is evidence to suggest that managing Oracle is actually esaier
> than managing SQL Server. See the Edison report that showed that Oracle
> Database 10g requires 30% less DBA time, 20% less steps, and up to $36,000
> less per year to manage than SQLServer 2000
>
> http://www.theedison.com/research/gems/040401rdbmscmcs.pdf
>
> I believe that a new Edison report is due out soon comparing Oracle
> Database 10g to SQLServer 2005. But if the last eweek review is anything
> to go by, the difference may become even greater with the newest release
> of SQL Server
>
> "However, by making management more complex, Microsoft has discarded the
> one significant advantage it had over Oracle Database 10g and IBM's
> DB2—ease of administration. This makes DB2 and Oracle Database 10g look
> all the more attractive for their broader choice of development
> frameworks, management interfaces, and server hardware and operating
> systems."
>
> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1894609,00.asp
>
> Your last comment, which interesting enough is not the usual MS rhetoric
> is purely subjective, and you have no evidence to back this statement up
> at all.
Received on Sun Feb 26 2006 - 02:44:09 CST

Original text of this message

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