Re: a comparison of different databases

grant_at_towersoft.com.au (Fuzzy) wrote:

>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

I understand the problems you are encountering. I had and Oracle cd handed to me in Feb. We finaly got the first program to run yesterday. We are running DB2-2 and are converting one system to Oracle. The conversion time is terrible. The pilot program was just a simple add, chng, del. As of right now I am not very high on Oracle. It runs best on an overhead projecter. For the cost it should be a lot better than what it is.
DG Higginbotham Received on Wed Jul 10 1996 - 00:00:00 CEST