Re: sorry but Oracle v SQLServer again

Jerason Banes wrote:

> While Jim and Daniel make some excellent points, I'd like to add in my two
> cents worth from a purely technical standpoint (I don't like politics anyway
> ;-)). I would tend to caution against Oracle if you are not going to be
> using it for heavy database processing. Oracle generally requires a good
> deal of maintenance and babying to keep it in tip-top shape. This is not a
> failing of the database, but more an acknowledgement of its design as a
> high-end 24x7 database.
>
> At the same time, I would tend to caution away from SQL Server due to the
> complete vendor lock-in it produces. If you ever decide to move to another
> database or another platform (RATHER IMPORTANT, especially if Itaium ever
> actually catches on), you will probably find it easier to redesign the
> database from scratch. Even if you decide that you will accept the vendor
> lock-in, Microsoft is going to make you go through a painful conversion to
> SQL Server 2007 XP Extreme for Idiots with all kinds of new whiz-bang
> features that completely replace all the old whiz-bang features.
>
> I cannot comment on Sybase as I haven't used it enough.
>
> Instead, let me introduce another option that works extremely well for small
> to mid-size databases. A company called Pervasive makes a database called
> PervasiveSQL. This database is actually very popular, and is used by many
> companies who are converting their small mainframes to a PC/Unix database.
> It's also one of the oldest databases in existence. Of course, most people
> won't recognize the name because it used to be called BTrieve, so make sure
> you mention that fact and people will be able to tell you about it. The
> database is fast, scalable, standards compliant, low maintenance and plays
> nice with other software and databases. Justification is usually not too
> difficult as many managers have fond memories of using BTreive. You just
> have to convince them that it's made it into the 21st century. :-)
>
> As for tools, standard ODBC and JDBC tools will work with Pervasive. It
> comes with a nice set of GUI tools on par with DB2's, only less likely to
> lock up.
>
> Anyway, that's my 2 1/2 kopeks worth. Take it for what it's worth. Hopefully
> too many people won't be POed at me for recommending something over Oracle
> in this group. :-)
>
> Jerason Banes
>
> --
> ___________________________________
> Need a good Database managment solution?
> http://java.dnsalias.com
>
> "willy gates" <willy_gates_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4344f587.0206060529.1090c0ff_at_posting.google.com...
>
> > I am going through some costing analysis of a database for out small
> > organisation. I have come down to Syabse ASE, Oracle 9i or SQL Server
> > 2000.
> >
> > From what I can tell SQL server, out of the box, contains all manor of
> > design and profiling tools whereas if I want to design and create an
> > Oracle (or Sybase) database then I need to purchace either Oracle
> > Designer or Sybase Power Designer. I was even told by the Sybase
> > sales chap that I dont even get the DDL with the ASE server, I imagine
> > that the same will be said when the Oracle people get back to me.
> >
> > My problem is that these developer packs are the only thing that is
> > pushing Oracle and Sybase out of my budget, and I would rather run the
> > database on UNIX than NT.

I would disagree on one point you make ... I don't think Oracle, to use your words, requires a great deal of maintenance. It certainly allows a competent DBA to tune the system to near perfection. But if demands are not heavy and hard disk capacity sufficient a properly installed and configured Oracle system can easily go a year without needing anything more than an occassional user to keep it company.

Daniel Morgan Received on Thu Jun 06 2002 - 22:03:05 CEST