Re: L:ist - Can do/do better in MS SQL than Oracle

From: Mike <okana!!nofuckingsp|am!!~_at_!!nofuckingsplam!!~voidnet.!!mapson!!.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 14:35:34 -0700
Message-ID: <m3Mo8.23741$x51.524556_at_news.webusenet.com>


[Quoted] my penny and a half -

I would add that a large part of your decision should also be based on what you plan to do with it. If you "need" multi-platform support and plan on working with or warehouse large amounts of data then most likely Oracle. If you're talking application support and transactions, it's probably a wash.

Because Oracle is higly configurable you do/can spend a lot of time keeping an eye on it unless you give it a LOT of breathing room (i.e. disk space), especially if you deal with replication, hot backups and/or are in a 24/7 shop. With either you must have a dedicated and consistent backup scheme with (RMAN as mentioned below or other) - but from my own experience, Oracle is much harder to recover when you have a disaster.

If your budget is smaller or you are in a smaller shop - you don't have someone who can spend a LOT of time in DBA administration, then SQL.

SQL DTS packages are very easy to use and build and does make data imports and exports very easy.

As far as from a programming standpoint - I'd say it's a wash with VB and ADO - I know there are some in the community who say that Oracle is a tough fit with VB - but I've had no issues or problems with it and Oracle has been my main back-end for four years. SQL is easier to program for in ASP - that much I will say.

One note, the ongoing cost of support, maintainance and keeping the databases tuned and working efficiently is the very reason we are moving away from Oracle. The economy of maintaining several databases in a production enviroment when companies are trimming staffs, well, SQL is easier to manage in that regard.

That's all I have to say.

"Niall Litchfield" <n-litchfield_at_audit-commission.gov.uk> wrote in message news:3ca2e7b7$0$225$ed9e5944_at_reading.news.pipex.net...
> 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,
> 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
>
> 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.
>
> > Transact vs PL SQL language
>
> pays your money you takes your choice. Oracle also supports java within
the
> 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
> 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
> 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 - 22:35:34 CET

Original text of this message