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 17:57:04 -0000
Message-ID: <dtsq4u$c6q$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>


> What level of ANSI 92 or didn't you know there are different levels? That
> is the version not the level. SS isn't completely ANSI 92 compliant at
> all
> levels. (no one is)
> Jim

Ok, it has ENTRY, INTERMEDIATE and FULL compliance to FIPS 127-2 (http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/tsqlref/ts_set-set_86ya.asp) which is based on ANSI 92.

So, I guess let me rephrase the question - does Oracle have ENTRY, INTERMEDIATE and FULL compliance to FIPS 127-2 because I can only find references to ENTRY level.

But to reiterate the original point - a good database professional will, given a problem try and code it to FIPS 127-2 FULL (ANSI 92) and if it doesn't perform well enough will then look at vendor extensions. If you are writing an application that needs to run on SQL Server, Oracle and DB2 then you need to write portable SQL, that seems to be lost on HansF and probably DA too.

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


"Jim Kennedy" <jim dot scuba dot kennedy at gee male dot com> wrote in 
message news:nM6dnTjgnbcrQpzZRVn-jQ_at_comcast.com...

>
> "Tony Rogerson" <tonyrogerson_at_sqlserverfaq.com> wrote in message
> news:dtrpo7$bkl$1$8302bc10_at_news.demon.co.uk...
>> > What level is ANSI SQL compliance does Microsoft claim - can you
>> > provide
> a
>> > citation ?
>>
>> ANSI 92 - check Books Online.
> What level of ANSI 92 or didn't you know there are different levels? That
> is the version not the level. SS isn't completely ANSI 92 compliant at
> all
> levels. (no one is)
> Jim
>>
>> > 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 - 11:57:04 CST

Original text of this message

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