Re: L:ist - Can do/do better in MS SQL than Oracle
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 09:51:36 -0000
Message-ID: <3ca2e7b7$0$225$ed9e5944_at_reading.news.pipex.net>
[Quoted] [Quoted] My 2 cents (from an Oracle viewpoint)
"sandiyan" <sandiyan_at_yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:69e9c64b.0203270941.5b05708e_at_posting.google.com...
> I am been tasked to get a list:
>
> - that contain points that MS SQL will support but not Oracle...
>
> - that contain points that MS SQL will do better than Oracle...
>
> Points can be based on:
> Operatability...(from a DBA point of view)
MS Management tools and wizards are far in advance of those that Oracle
offers. The plus side is that tis pretty much allows anyone to manage a DB,
[Quoted] of course the downside is it pretty much allows anyone to manage a DB. On
the other hand Oracle is highly,highly configurable in a way that SQL isn't.
> Backup/Restore
[Quoted] Oracle ships out of the box with a product that allows you to backup only changed blocks from datafiles (RMAN). As far as I know MS doesn't provide this level of functionality which will help massively on very large databases.
pays your money you takes your choice. Oracle also supports java within the [Quoted] DB - the jury is out on how good an idea this is.
> Cursors
> Security
Is almost always a configuration issue not a technology issue. Oracle is probably technically ahead and of course runs on platforms other than NT.
> Instances/Clusters(Real Applicatin clusteres)
Oracle runs well on decent high end clustered systems. MSSQL runs on NT clusters. Oracle clustered boxes are always contributing to the performance [Quoted] of the system. RAC looks a very very good product.
> Performance
is 80% down to good initial design. Most of the rest is then down to codeing. the fixes will be application specific. Bear in mind that in Oracle [Quoted] select statements will *never* wait for an insert/update to complete and vice versa. (unless you choose to so cripple them).
> etc...
>
> I have got meeting with Oracle consultants and need some points so
> that I can judge whether it is really worth moving to Oracle...
It'll cost you :-(
>
>
> Thanks,
> NM
Received on Thu Mar 28 2002 - 10:51:36 CET