Re: Is Oracle slower than sql server

"Mark D Powell" <Mark.Powell_at_eds.com> wrote in message news:1153922359.613467.315660_at_s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Charles Hooper wrote:
>> sybrandb wrote:
>> > faisal.mansoor_at_gmail.com wrote:
>> > > Hello All
>> > >
>> > > I am having problem with oracle performance in comparsion with SQL
>> > > Server. My application supports both Oracle (9.2) and SQL server
>> > > (2000)
>> > > database. I have identical schemas installed on both Oracle
>> > > (installed
>> > > on windows box) and SQL server, all the tables and stored procs are
>> > > identical but I am constantly getting performace problems with
>> > > oracle.
>> > > Oracle takes twice or more time to perform the same data retrival and
>> > > insertion tasks that SQL server does in half the time. Is it a
>> > > general
>> > > problem which every one faces? if not then please let me know how can
>> > > I
>> > > improve performance of on oracle database-- I am not comparing two
>> > > oracle's snapsots, but I want to improve oracle's performance to
>> > > match
>> > > with SQL server --. Our data base is of medium size and we are
>> > > running
>> > > both oracle and sql with alomost all default configurations.
>> > >
>> > > Any one having such experience or solution to problem please answer.
>> > >
>> > > Faisal
>> >
>> > The reason Oracle is slower is you subscribe to the myth Oracle is
>> > Sqlserver sold by a different vendor. It is not. The architecture is
>> > completely different.
>> > If you *ported* the sqlserver application *directly* without change to
>> > sqlserver, yes, you will have a non-performant applicationi.
>> > Sadly, there are complete armies of Oracle DBAs who do nothing but to
>> > resolve the errors made by people like you.
>> > I would buy any book on Oracle architecture or development written by
>> > Tom Kyte and he will explain you why you are wrong. He will also
>> > provide you with the tools to find out where you are wrong.
>> > Furthermore the Oracle Concepts Manual, online at
>> > http://tahiti.oracle.com, is a mandatory read. Likely, being
>> > brainwashed by the Evil Empire, aka Microsoft, you didn't read
>> > anything.
>> >
>> > There is no such thing as a database independent app, and there will
>> > never be.
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Sybrand Bakker
>> > Senior Oracle DBA
>>
>> I can't disagree with anything said.
>>
>> However, I would add that an "alomost all default configurations" setup
>> on a server with a single RAID 5 array will not deliver desirable
>> performance. The Oracle database must be properly tuned and installed
>> on a sufficient disk subsystem. In my case, under Oracle 8i, I saw a
>> roughly 5 fold application performance improvement over an almost
>> default Oracle installation. Some message threads on asktom.oracle.com
>> suggest that SQLServer can be faster that Oracle when there are few
>> users on the system, but as the number of users increases, Oracle
>> quickly overtakes SQLServer's performance.
>>
>> Tom Kyte's books focus more on the application development side of
>> Oracle administration than they do on the system configuration side of
>> Oracle. Chapter 1 of both of his books is a must read for anyone who
>> believes that all databases are the same - just digital dumping grounds
>> for data. If you still are not convinced that a database is not just a
>> digital dumping ground, pick up a copy of "Cost-Based Oracle
>> Fundamentals" by Jonathan Lewis. If you are interested in determining
>> WHY your programs runs more slowly on Oracle, pick up a copy of
>> "Optimizing Oracle Performance" by Cary Millsap - the 10046 trace at
>> level 8 or level 12 will tell you why your program is running slowly.
>>
>> Charles Hooper
>> PC Support Specialist
>> K&M Machine-Fabricating, Inc.
>
> Sybrand probably identified the main problem even if he may have been a
> little harsh. Though in some cases his wording would be too kind.
> Vendors who port their product from SQL Server to Oracle are quick to
> blame Oracle for performance issues when often their applications do
> not run well on SQL Server once the user load or data quantity
> increases.
>

Where did the the OP say that he ported from SQL Server to Oracle? I think that it is highly probable but ... perhaps that question should have been the initial response from sybrandb.

> Faisal, Oracle provides a free SQL Server to Oracle conversion tool.
> You might want to run the code through it and compare the results to
> what you are running. The process might expose some tuning
> opportunities.
>

Oracle Migration Workbench? It does a reasonable job with moving data from Sybase ASE to Oracle. But we still had to clean up some anomalies. As for stored procedures and triggers - ugh. We decided that you might just as well rewrite them - partly because of the architectural issues. (Sybase ASE and MS SQL server syntaxes are very similar.)

> Charles point about looking at you disk setup is also valid though disk
> is often a 'black box' to the DBA these days. Your are told to "Put
> all your database files there" and when you ask how many physical
> dirves are behind the mount point you are told not to worry about it.
>

What? Surely you jest, sir! As any Harvard MBA graduate can tell you, he doesn't have to know anything about the specifics of the company that he runs. All one needs to know is general business principles. After all, if you can run Pepsi then you can run Apple. Especially since both items are food!! The same must be true for disk storage. Why, all you have to do is mirror and use RAID4 and everything will be fool-proof ..... Not only that, but the hardware vendors know what they are doing. It must be better to have fewer drives, each of which has much more capaacity.

<turn sarcasm off>

> HTH -- Mark D Powell --
>
Received on Wed Jul 26 2006 - 10:32:16 CDT