Re: Oracle vs SQL Server
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 18:29:52 +0000 (UTC)
On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 07:22:20 -0700, johnbhurley wrote:
> Personally I would not ask for a SQL Server reference unless that is a
> path that you really want to go down.
SQL Server is much cheaper than Oracle. Oracle is very expensive. I don't have any experience with SQL Server but I have moved Oracle databases to both MySQL and PostgreSQL. Such moves are frequently justified, in case of small databases. In many cases, Oracle RDBMS was used to replace MS Access, an enormous overkill. PgSQL or MySQL can do that very well at the fraction of the cost. If the database is larger then 4GB, Oracle XE is not an option.
Of course, I did the opposite, too. One of my favorite recent projects included moving the product called Cacti from MySQL to Oracle. The polling scripts were being run simultaneously and the underlying MySQL database couldn't cope with 10 simultaneous transactions. The solution was to insert the results from the polling scripts into an Oracle XE and then transfer the data from Oracle XE into MySQL using Perl. After that, Cacti was happily drawing the results.
After some experiences with Oracle's "stick 'em up and gimme all your money" licensing policies, I stopped recommending Oracle first. SQL Server is a good alternative, if it works. No reasons for paying the premium price, if that is not needed. There is a crisis, it's a harsh world out there. Don't misunderestimate me, but I would check the SQL Server solution, too.Received on Thu Apr 16 2009 - 13:29:52 CDT