Re: Differences between the Microsoft and the Oracle SQL server

ray charbonneau <raycharb_at_teleport.com> wrote:

>I have many concerns when considering Oracle. I do agree that from an
>enterprise stanpoint (especially if you are doing transactions over
>multiple databases), Oracle may be the way to go. But, there is a steep
>price to pay. First, you have to deal with Oracle. Second, the product
>is more difficult to learn. Third, the SQL capabilities in
>Oracle stored procedures are somewhat limited. Last time I looked, you
>could not create temporaray tables in a stored procedure. You also could
>not join tables on Updates & Deletes. Also, Oracle's query optimizer is
>still not up to speed with Sybase and Microsoft.

I don't agree. We're not talking about the ENTERPRISE edition of Oracle!!!! If you compare Oracle Workgroup Server to SQL Server - Oracle is cheaper to implement, cheaper to run, and provides a lot more funcionality, scalable, portable, faster, on and on! As far as difficulty to learn - Workgroup Server is actually a lot easier to learn than SQL Server - PL/SQL is a 4GL language - what the hell does Microsoft offer as far as a programmatic scripting language in SQL Server - NOTHING! You were already corrected on the third issue about joining tables on updates and deletes ... you don't know what the hell your talking about. Check out the benchmarks stupid - Oracle is always faster on any platform against any competitor.

>Regarding the row level locking issue, I have done system with hundreds
>of simulatneous users with page level locking and did not have any
>problems.

You're going to tell me you've done systems with hundreds of users on SQL Server? MY DYING ASS!!! The standard number of users on SQL Server is 10-20... they had ONE (that's right - ONE) site that had 200 users on it 1995! 6.5 still can't get up to 200 users without terrible consequences - ever heard of DBCC? You'll be using it on the hour with SQL Server and that many users (you have to kick every one off, shut down the SQL Server, and do a Database Consistency Check). NOW WHY THE HELL IS THERE SUCH A THING AS DBCC IF THEY DON'T HAVE PROBLEMS WITH COLLISIONS???? There are systems (Informix, Sybase, Oracle) with hundreds of users that use page level locking (by the way you can force Oracle into page level locking) that never have collisions - very common for read-only snapshot OLAP type sites - because you never do inserts, updates, or deletes -DUHHH!!! If MS SQL Server didn't think Row-level locking was important why then did they implement it on the inserts with 6.5? And why are they promising Row level with all transactions in their next release? Well obviously because they see the importance in it (collisions are a lot worse on a database than the overhead involved in managing at row-level) yet they haven't been able to reproduce this technology!!!
>Also, if you are doing database replication, Sybase's replication server
>is light-years ahead of Oracle. I actually know companies that are
>strickly Oracle shops who use Sybase's replication server with their
>Oracle databases.

You must be high Jack-ASS! Those sites don't know what the hell they're doing then. Ever heard of Symmetric Replication? Probably not eh? Just spoutin' off aren't you? Well Oracle's the only one who's got it and no one's even come close - basically it means (this will obviously be new to you) readable / writeable asynchrous replication (full with differed locks, differed RPC, remote triggers, etc.) along with dynamic master tables - multi master tables - known as n-way replication. No one else can do that - not even close!
>Because Sybase and Microsoft do not advertise their products in the same
>manner as Oracle, these differences are seldom mentioned.
BULLSHIT! They just don't have anything to advertise! I've been in the consulting business for nine years now and I'm not an Oracle pusher. I implement and design whatever a company (big or small) wants. However, Oracle offers a solution from Personal Oracle to Enterprise and everything in between, tools, everything. I will not, however, ever work on SQL Server. Microsoft came from the bottom in single user systems. That's where they should stay!
>have fun
>ray charb.

You have fun using your DBCC every night with SQL Server (old Sybase technology by the way) while I'm out partying it up and Oracle's Workgroup Server is at work providing Light's Out automated mgt. (SQL Server can't do that!). Received on Thu Jun 27 1996 - 00:00:00 CEST