Re: a comparison of different databases

From: Fuzzy <grant_at_towersoft.com.au>
Date: 1996/07/09
Message-ID: <4rurfg$6e31_at_red.interact.net.au>#1/1


Phil Edwards <news-uk_at_dircon.co.uk> wrote:

>Franco Scarselli wrote:
>>
>> I need a SQL server to manage data. The candidates are the Oracle SQL
>> server, the Sybase SQL and the Microsoft SQL server.
 

>< snip >
 

>> Microsoft SQL seems to be cheap and at the same time it should work well
>> in an enviroment completely based on Microsoft operative systems.
 

>Don't bank on it!

Cheap it is, compared to Oracle. Phil's right about not banking on its integration with the OS>

>> Microsoft SQL does not have row locking, but for some years I will not
>> need it, because we have few client PCs.
 

>Again, don't bank on it! Deadlocks are almost inevitable, but row-level
>locking is your best bet for an increased Mean Time Between Deadlocks.

Not for MS SQL Server with only a handful of clients. If they are performing "Joe Punchcard" style operations, I'll buy you a beer for every deadlock they get. Besides, v6.5 of SQL Server has implemented row-level locking. It's not perfect - you can notice the performance drop - but we all know MS will hammer this until they can atleast claim to beat all Oracle's locking benchmarks on paper. <takes huge grain of salt>

>> In the mean time, Microsoft
>> will provide to resolve the problem (I hope). Microsoft SQL runs only on
>> NT server, however NT is likely to replace DOS and WINDOS and to became
>> very widespread so that the fact could not be a major drawback.
 

>At the risk of repeating myself... don't bank on it! M$'s OS strategy has
>changed about twice a year for as long as I've been watching it.

A good point. Who knows what MS will do. One thing in its favour is that NT has always been the winner in these "re-orientations".

>> Oracle enterprise server is far more expensive. However, Oracle
>> Workgroup server is competitive, even if it lacks of data replication.
>> Further, I know that Oracle enterprise has a lot of more features, but
>> what about Workgroup server with respect to Microsoft and Sybase
>> servers? Further, a WEB server would be useful for me and the Oracle
>> WEB server is very expensive. On the other hand Oracle products are more
>> scalable. Further, Oracle is the leader of the market, it is very
>> interested in spend money to mantain its position. This should be an
>> assurance for the future.
 

>Technically Oracle is ahead of the field. What you need to consider is
>whether this means a more stable product or simply one with lots of
>additional features. In at least one respect (row-level locking), at
>least one of the other DBMSs is significantly behind Oracle.

The most important point with Oracle is "Can I afford $50k - $100k per annum paying the DBA that Oracle ALWAYS needs, because it is still such a disgusting product to administer?"

>> Sybase offers two products: Sybase SQL server and Anywhere SQL server.
>> The former is similar to Microsoft SQL server because they are both the
>> result of the development of the old Sybase SQL server. However, there
>> is Unix version for Sybase SQL. Anywhere come from Whatcom SQL and is a
>> very simple DBMS which has the advantage of beeing able to run with very
>> few memory and to support Windows 95, Windows 3.1 ....
 

>Watcom. Nice products.

Amen. If you're only ever going to have 20 to 30 users, seriously consider SQL Anywhere. It's as easy to administer as falling asleep at your PC, doesn't need fancy back-up handling, and is a genuinely nice product.

>> Pheraphs in my
>> case, I could use Anywhere in branch offices and Sybase SQL in main
>> office. Sybase products are cheap, expecially Anywhere. Of corse they
>> lack of some feature with respect to Oracle, but what about Sybase SQL
>> server with respect to Microsoft SQL server?

Now your getting into deep water.

>Or you could get an AS/400 (built-in database, runs Netware, runs Notes).
>But I guess I would say that.
>--
>Phil Edwards phil_at_news400.com
>Editor, NEWS/400.UK +44 (0)161 929 0777
Received on Tue Jul 09 1996 - 00:00:00 CEST

Original text of this message