Re: Comparisons of TCA between Oracle and SQL Server

DA Morgan wrote:
> Niall Litchfield wrote:
> > Walt wrote:
> >>
> >> The most interesting graph:
> >>
> >> Study participants reported that on average a database
> >> administrator could manage more than 30 Microsoft SQL Server
> >> 2005 databases, while Oracle 10g implementations required one
> >> DBA per 10 databases. On average, the annual cost for
> >> administration is $2,847 per year per database for Microsoft
> >> SQL Server 2005 and $10,206 per year per database for Oracle
> >> 10g. That's a savings of more than 350% in annual costs per
> >> database for the Microsoft platform.
> >>
> >> One wonders if the authors understand that the term "database" as used
> >> by SQL Server is equivalent to the term "schema" in Oracle. For
> >> instance, I only admin one Oracle production database (mostly I'm a
> >> developer), but it has over 30 schemas.
> >
> > Given that the actual survey talks about database servers rather than
> > databases per se, I think that its entirely possible that they know the
> > difference.
>
> I received a reply from the author. He seems to know absolutely nothing
> about Oracle beyond the fact that his company has both SQL Server and
> Oracle. He was unable to address the fact that in Oracle database <>
> instance <> schema or to understand the implications of his question.

I think in this case the word "author" may be adding too much credibility to the 'article'.

To me, he appeared more to be a dude rambling on about database things that doesn't have a clue. Received on Mon Sep 25 2006 - 07:44:01 CDT