Re: Is MS-SQL6.5 in the same league as Oracle, Sybase?

In article <325d6a01.1878874_at_news.thehub.com.au>, gordonh_at_thehub.com.au says...
>
>roussel_at_physics.mcgill.ca (Harold Roussel) wrote:
>
>>The title says it all. I need to find a good SQL database system for
>>handling up to 50 million records (database size of a few gigs) and I
>>was wondering if I should limit my choice to Oracle or Sybase. What
>>about advanced features like data encryption, mirroring, etc? Is
>>MS-SQL up to the task? Thanks for any information.
>>
>Not from the press I have seen in relation to MS-SQLServer, although
 Microsoft
>say they have an enterprise solution that is far from the truth without
 going
>into too much detail here are a number of features that are part of
 Oracle that
>are not in MS-SQLServer:
>
>- Symmetric replication
>- Full row-level locking
>- Full parallel capabilities
>-Bit-mapped indexing
>- Star query optimisation
>- Object repository
>- distributed optimiser (&distributed joins)
>- User-defined functions
>- Support for loosely-coupled systems
>- Support for MPP systems
>- Support for 64-bit memory systems
>- Distributed join capability
>- Hierarchical data-types
>- Multi-protocol interchange
>
>>
>>
>>//
>>// Harold Roussel email: roussel_at_physics.mcgill.ca
>>// Ph.D. student phone: (514) 398-6506
>>// High Energy Physics
>>// McGill University, Montréal, Québec
>>//
>>// Using OS/2 Warp and NT 3.51.
>>//
>>// "Mais je vais être frénétique et fulminant, il me faut une armée enti
ère
à
>>// déconfire. J'ai dix coeurs, j'ai vingt bras. Il ne peut me suffire
 de
>>// pourfendre des nains, il me faut des géants." Cyrano de Bergerac
>>
>

I am not sure from where you obtained this list but it looks like the typical vendor "Why I am better then X" list. There are 14 items (there could be more). If you look at them closely it would appear that there are only X. Four (multi-protocol exchange, support for loosely-coupled systems, MPP systems and 64-bit memory systems) don't apply as NT doesn't fit into any of those catagories and if the original poster is looking at SQL Server they have to be considering NT. If NT is only one of the operating systems being considered the original post needs clarification.

Three deal with distributed query processing and should be combined into one item.

Three items (row-level locking, parallel capabilities and bit mapped indexing) are performance enhancements which may or may not be applicable. MS SQL Server has it's own list of performance inhancements that are not in ORACLE. Only a comprehensive benchmark would determine which set is best for the application being considered.

Two items (Object repository and Hierarcical data-types) should be grouped together.

User-defined functions are supported by MS SQL Server.

As a result, I come up with 4 items from your list with the others either duplicates or not applicable. And of those four I feel that replication is the only one that has real merit.

In reality, all three of the databases mentioned in the original post (and probably DB2 as mentioned by a response) will work. Each has advantages and each has disadvantages. It would be impossible to say which product would do the best job from the limited information given.

Flame On! Received on Fri Oct 11 1996 - 00:00:00 CEST