Re: Why not SQL Server

dbvision_at_inet.uni-c.dk wrote:

>Can anyone of you tell me why SQL Server is not the right ting for big databases and 300+ users and why Oracle is the best for this purpose.
 

>Thanks

Tore,

The basic problem is that until the most recent version of SQL Server (6.5), it relied on page locking, not row locking. This means greater probability of contention, especially when we're talking 300 odd users. Oracle has a fairly sophisticated (some would say cumbersome) lock regime, but it is based on row locking, and rarely has a problem with contention.

With SQL Server 6.5, Micro$oft has introduced 'sort-of' row locking, but I haven't used it yet (the CD is still in the wrapper), so I can't comment too much on it, other than what I've read. Basically, it gives the options to use page locking, row locking, or some of both. Sounds dicey to me.

(Note: I'm an avid Micro$oft hater, except when it comes to SQL Server, so take these comments with a grain of salt.)

Ciao
Fuzzy
:-)

Grant Allen                    | "Woo Hoo!"
grant_at_towersoft.com.au         | H. Simpson
-----------------------------------------------
The contents of this post are my opinions only.
      If swallowed, seek medical advice.