Re: sql vs oracle

In article <35FFD956.59F8_at_alliedsignal.com>,   naushi.hussain_at_alliedsignal.com wrote:
> Following is the dialogue between me and a project leader for an
> upcoming project. The argument is about what DBMS are we going to use.
> DB size is 7GB.20k transactions/day. Can someone say anything in support
> of sql.

I think you confused poor Hal when you suggested that MS SQL couldn't handle over 100 users AND 50 Gb worth of data. He seemed to take that as, "100 users OR 50Gb of data." My experience with Oracle (limited though it may be) has been pretty good on UNIX platforms and abysmal on NT.

Managing an MS SQL Server is generally easier, and cheaper personnel-wise. You'll spend a lot less on MS licenses.
Depending on client tools you've targetted for development, you may find it easier to acquire MS SQL programmers than Oracle developers.

--
Ben McEwan
Geist, LLC
bmcewan_at_global2000.net

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum