Re: What is a relational database?

kfein_at_primenet.com (KE Fein) writes:

> Joe We are Borg Foster wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> >Avoid Oracle if you can, since it's a real pain to set up and
> >maintain. On one project, some of their own consultants failed
> >after two weeks of trying to get their database server up and
> >running on customer hardware, but we had SQL Server, originally
> >based on Sybase code, up and running in half an hour. Sybase's
> >product line supports a variety of server platforms, including
> >Unix, NetWare, Windows NT, Windows 95, and even OS/2. See if they
> >can meet your needs.
> >[snip]
 

> Sounds like opinion. I wouldn't pick a DBMS based only on
> installation ease. Foxpro/ISAM or B-Trieve is easy to install on
> those platforms, so would that make them a better choice based on
> your criterea? I don't know why the consultants failed. Didn't
> they tell you?

If I can recall properly, they muttered something about hardware problems, but we couldn't get anything definite out of them. An hour after they gave up, SQL Server installed the first time and ran like a charm. The consultants were referred to us by Oracle itself!

> I have supported both Oracle and SQLServer as database developer
> and DBA. Ease of administration can usually mean lack of
> administration tools for tuning, performance, maintainability and
> recoverability. This is the case for SQLServer(MS and/or Sybase).
> Oracle provides for full recovery to point in time through redo
> logs and DBMS mirrored control files(not hw mirroring). SQLServer
> does not.

Can you clarify this? Are you saying SQL Server doesn't support recovery, or are you saying it only supports recovery through the last checkpoint?

> Upshot. Do your homework. What is important to you? Installation?
> Lack of control/ease of administration? Performance of online(hot)
> backups(archivelog filecopy vs. dumpdb? Hmm...

It doesn't matter if we can't get it up and running at all! Besides, ease of administration and control don't have to be mutually exclusive. There can be pretty point-and-click interfaces and software wizards for the newbies, while the meatware wizards can get at an &Options &Advanced... tabbed dialog and/or system stored procs and SQL! Meanwhile, Oracle has its hundreds of pages of manuals and an apparent demand that the DBA know everything before being able to do anything.

> IMHO I've been sorry for a SQLServer choice, but not yet for an
> Oracle choice.

We were very sorry for that one project where we first picked Oracle. One can accumulate a lot of egg on the face and crow to eat in two weeks of downtime, while Oracle's gurus stand around scratching their heads! Nothing else we put on that machine ever had a problem. We got Oracle running eventually for other contracts, but they're a nightmare. Maybe we weren't doing something right, but when we just want something to work without blowing up in our faces, we pick SQL Anywhere or SQL Server. They may not be Formula 1 race cars, but they don't have to spend half their time with a mechanic under them, either!

[snip]

-- 
Joe Foster <mailto:joe*AT*bftsi0.gate.net> Yes, CJ3, I still work for BFTSI!
WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above        They're   coming  to
because  my cats have  apparently  learned to type.        take me away, ha ha!