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

In article <53mkcd$s7p_at_netnews.hinet.net>, npis_at_ms1.hinet.net says...
>
>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!
>
Right On!

I would suggest you do a benchmark comparison - one dbms i would recommend tho is ADABAS which comes in two forms ADABAS D (the true relational ONE) and ADABAS C (the go faster OLTP one).

Its worth noting ADABAS D has 3 modes of operation - Oracle DB2 or ADABAS, so you can emulate the DBMS of your choice - (the DB2 and Oracle modes as known as go slow modes!).

One thing you should take into account when evaluating is the administration overhead,we run ADABAS(10 databases = 100 gig) and MSQL (450meg) - i spend more time keeping msql up & running and administrating it than i do adabas

Nick Received on Mon Oct 14 1996 - 00:00:00 CEST