Re: a comparison of different databases
Date: 1996/07/09
Message-ID: <4rurfg$6e31_at_red.interact.net.au>#1/1
Phil Edwards <news-uk_at_dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>Franco Scarselli wrote:
>>
>> I need a SQL server to manage data. The candidates are the Oracle SQL
>> server, the Sybase SQL and the Microsoft SQL server.
>< snip >
>> Microsoft SQL seems to be cheap and at the same time it should work well
>> in an enviroment completely based on Microsoft operative systems.
>Don't bank on it!
Cheap it is, compared to Oracle. Phil's right about not banking on its integration with the OS>
>> Microsoft SQL does not have row locking, but for some years I will not
>> need it, because we have few client PCs.
>Again, don't bank on it! Deadlocks are almost inevitable, but row-level
>locking is your best bet for an increased Mean Time Between Deadlocks.
>> In the mean time, Microsoft
>> will provide to resolve the problem (I hope). Microsoft SQL runs only on
>> NT server, however NT is likely to replace DOS and WINDOS and to became
>> very widespread so that the fact could not be a major drawback.
>At the risk of repeating myself... don't bank on it! M$'s OS strategy has
>changed about twice a year for as long as I've been watching it.
>> 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.
>> 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.
>> 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