Re: Oracle VS SQL Server - Which is best to back end ?

Hi Alex,

Support (for registered user)
(++)Oracle : very good and fast, whole error database in web (-) Microsoft : bad and expensive !

Administration of the database :
(-)Oracle : in V8 better than in V7, but a little bit complex (+)SQL Server: Less complex

database programming:
(++) Oracle: PL/SQL or Java; better error handling, better trigger concept, global session variables, cascade delete, ... (-) SQL-Server: T-SQL, only "after statement"- trigger, no global session variables, very bad error handling (!), no cascade delete...

Installation:
(-)Oracle:not so easy like sql-server
(++)sql-server : easy.

Requirements:
(-)Oracle: If you install the java machine, you should have about 128 MB (min). Oracle needs more power than sql-server (but you get also more!) (+)sql-server: Less requirements for a standard installation.

Clients:
(o)Oracle : via ODBC (free driver from oracle) or if you use seagate or delphi, there is a native driver, you need Net8 installed on clients and server. (+)SQL-Server: same, but you need no database network-protocol

If you use the database only for storing data (without any database programming like triggers, stored procs) take sql-server because it's easy to install and administrate.
But If you want to transfer any application logic inside the database use Oracle because the trigger-support is much better, the error handling, you can use java,...

If you migrate from oracle to sql-server it is like first driving a Porsche (oracle) and later a bike (sql-server).

But if you need a cheap solution:
Take MSDE (the "light"-version of sql-server, it's free, but has some limits, eg. 2GB per database file, ...)
bye
Wolfgang

Alex Stevens wrote:

> I guess that this has probably been discussed before, but not in my lifetime
> on this group, so I'd appreciate any views that the group have as VB
> Developers.
>
> I've been asked to make a comparison between Oracle / SQLS for a
> specification we're writing for a system which is too great for Access,
> (poor network infrastructure on site). So the solution is for a
> client/server system.
>
> Point to note: The volumes of data will be too great for Access, but
> probably at the lower end of the scale for a true client/server back end
> database.
>
> The company contracted to support IT at the firm, will only support Oracle
> back-ends, and will not hear of SQL Server being installed. The main client
> however will listen to any argument for the use SQLS with VB.
>
> I would prefer to use SQL Server, as I always feel more at home with
> Microsoft products (Technet support, big on-line communities), by my
> knowledge of any comparison with Oracle is nil.
>
> I would appreciate any of your views regarding this dilemma.
>
> Many Thanks
>
> Alex Stevens, England
Received on Tue Sep 05 2000 - 17:22:42 CEST