Re: sorry but Oracle v SQLServer again

Hmmm... I'd have to fall somewhere in between Daniel and Jerason; we're running some of Oracle 8i, Sybase 12.0 and SQL Server2000 to some extent and find that yes, once tuned correctly, Oracle may not require too much care and feeding if your environment isn't changing a lot. Oracle certainly is more robust than the other two, and that generally translates to more tuning parameters, etc. So I'd say that Oracle is probably more work out of the box and on a daily basis for the average DBA in an average environment.

We're more experienced with Sybase (from version 4.9.x to 12.0), with a couple of year's experience with Oracle. Sybase is a good product with a small market share - they could probably benefit from a decent dose of good advertising. Chen seems to get the point there, but it's slow coming.

As I tell almost anyone doing the comparision, "you just need to evaluate each vendor for your specific needs - it's not an easy thing to do, but one comforting thought is that either one will probably get the job done for most applications".

Coston Cheatham

Daniel Morgan wrote:

> 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 Fri Jun 07 2002 - 06:26:27 CEST