euan.garden_at_gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 14, 11:01 am, DA Morgan <damor..._at_psoug.org> wrote:
>> Robert Klemme wrote:
>>> On 14.02.2007 10:51, sybrandb wrote:
>>>> What is the business case for 4 databases? Oracle != sqlserver, a
>>>> *schema* in Oracle is a *database* in sqlserver. You don't need 4
>>>> databases.
>>> I am in doubt whether this is still true withSQL Server2005.
>> It is!
>> --
>> Daniel A. Morgan
>> University of Washington
>> damor..._at_x.washington.edu
>> (replace x with u to respond)
>> Puget Sound Oracle Users Groupwww.psoug.org
>
> Close but wrong. A schema in SQL Server 2005 is like a schema in
> Oracle, a database in Oracle is like an instance in SQL Server in some
> ways and like a database in other ways. The schema answer is easy, the
> database one is more complex.
What you wrote is correct my does not alter the above responses.
Microsoft and Oracle may use the same words to mean different things.
But verbiage does not make it necessary to create 4 Oracle databases
(Oracle usage) because in SQL Server there were 4 databases (SQL Server
usage).
--
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)
Puget Sound Oracle Users Group
www.psoug.org
Received on Thu Feb 15 2007 - 10:50:09 CST
