Re: Differences between the Microsoft and the Oracle SQL server

richu_at_interaccess.com wrote:

[snip]
>Row-level locking may make the DBS slower but your other alternative is
>page-level..

I'm not sure about this... If we're talking about raw speed and TPC results comparing Oracle73 to SQL-Server 6.5 on NT 3.51, then Oracle comes up highest in the benchmarks. Oracle's had RLL for years, and still owns the highest-ever recorded tpm/c benchmark in the industry!

> ORACLE (40%) of the market share...closest competitor is INFORMIX(20%)..wheres
> SYBASE? (15%)..
>Now given this? Wheres SQL Server? ORACLE also runs on many of not all OS and
>platforms and is rather scalable.
>Bottom LINE: At the enterprise level, Oracle is tough to beat

FYI: Microsoft was currently standing at 3% when I last looked at the figures.

I fully agree with your 'bottom line', but have also seen first-hand a large number of customers who have gone for Workgroup Oracle7 INSTEAD of SQL-Server in the 'low-end' of the market.

Perhaps half the problem is that people still associate Oracle with a very high price tag, and don't realise that Workgroup Server is essentially the same kernel and backbone of Oracle, yet at a much lower price-point. (and sure, without some of the advanced features)

Rgds. Received on Tue Jun 25 1996 - 00:00:00 CEST