Re: Sybase buys Powerbuilder - Is Oracle Dead?
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 1994 09:42:58 GMT
Message-ID: <James.Lawrence.30.0009B7A4_at_epamail.epa.gov>
In article <CzzJD0.7Ir_at_sybase.com> David.Heller_at_sybase.com writes:
>From: David.Heller_at_sybase.com
>Subject: Re: Sybase buys Powerbuilder - Is Oracle Dead?
>Date: Mon, 28 Nov 1994 17:50:14 GMT
>If you Oracle users and fans are going to crosspost to the Sybase group, be
>prepared for corrections and critique.
>How are Oracle stored procedure calls more flexible than Sybase's? Can you
>give some examples?
>I was told that Oracle stored procedures, can only return a single row. Is
>this true? Sybase stored procedures can return multiple rows (without
>resorting to temp tables or other workarounds). Do you really consider the
>ability to return only a single row MORE flexible? The most important point of
>relational database operations is, IMHO, working with sets of rows, not row at
>a time processing.
Lawrence....
>In article <hackCzq75G.GDt_at_netcom.com>, <hack_at_netcom.com> writes:
>> if you want replication server, Sybase does that too.
>> If you want parallel server, use Oracle. If you want
>> flexibility on your stored procedure calls, again, choose
>> Oracle.
>>
Received on Tue Nov 29 1994 - 10:42:58 CET