Re: Performance on NT: Oracle vs. SQLServer?

From: NewsBoy////////// <news_at_news.news>
Date: 1997/03/27
Message-ID: <01bc3ae7$2374e110$03060101_at_hercules>#1/1


Well put John. The SQL Server, lean and nimble. Its easier to steer and can react much faster than the Oracle. As far as robustness, yes the Oracle is more robust. I fyou anticiapate larger databases in the futrea nd cannot wait for the nexr relase of SQL Server, then go for Oracle. Otherwise, SQL Server's next release will suffice. Not sure of its exact release date yet.

John T. McKay <jmckay_at_imnet.com> wrote in article <3339419F.11DD_at_imnet.com>...
> doug a blaisdell wrote:
> >
> > Hi out there!
> >
> > We're trying to decide between Oracle and SQL server, for a DSS
 database with
> > about 200 Meg of data now, but much larger soon (eg 1 Gig). We've got a
 dual
> > processor with 128 Meg (but could increase this), running NT 4.0.
> >
> > I've heard that Oracle doesn't run as fast on NT, as on UNIX. Have any
 of you
> > had experience with either/both, or know of performance benchmarks of
 Oracle
> > vs. NT??
> >
> > Any help appreciated...
>
> I have used both Oracle and SQL Server on NT and have found SQL Server
> to be faster (in ways) but Oracle to be a bit more robust. You'll hear
> a lot of different advice with a question like this one. However, I
> would say it all depends on what you need. To me, SQL Server is like a
> Chevy pickup truck and Oracle is like a Freightliner. They are both
> built to carry loads. With the Freightliner, you can carry a bigger,
> heavier load, but you don't have the excelleration and maneuverability
> that you would with a smaller truck. It's just a matter of what you
> need your RDBMS to do and where you need it's strengths/weaknesses to
> be.
>
> Hope that helps,
>
> John
>
  Received on Thu Mar 27 1997 - 00:00:00 CET

Original text of this message