Re: Oracle sucks!

First let me state that Oracle doesn't categorically suck, but some things in it do. I didn't start this thread, but someone dared ask the question "What in Oracle sucks", so I named a few (of many) things that suck in Oracle.

Also, I don't think it's better or worse than SQL 2000, but I just like SQL Server better because it serves my needs better and it's easier to administer and use. It also seems more internally and externally consistent. Over all, I prefer open source projects to either.

wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au (Nuno Souto) wrote in message news:<73e20c6c.0304301915.11351f88_at_posting.google.com>...
>
> > Specifically, SQL 99 standards. Oracle does not even support the OUTER
> > JOIN and INNER JOIN operators. SQL 2000 does.
>
> "even support"? How about declarative referential integrity,
> without which NO RDBMS can operate properly? Since when
> has SS had it? Hmmm?
>

Since SQL 7. In SQL 2000 Microsoft added cascading updates and deletes.

> > Microsoft is obviously trying to crush Oracle. Once they do that,
>
> "once"? Dream on...

Where is Netscape? (A. Running Open Source as Mozilla on my Linux box.)

> > Personally, I prefer PostgreSQL--but I haven't seen any benchmarks
>
> What do you know?

I know I like it. What else do I need to know?

> > they're free--you can optimize and recompile them for the sake of
> > pete!
>
> Ah, but that will not create a compatibility problem like
> the one you mentioned above between the "standards"?

No it won't. Perhaps you don't follow Open Source, but open source projects tend to gravitate toward standards, not away from them. And I'm talking about changing optimization parameters at compile time, not changing standards compliance.

Henry. Received on Thu May 01 2003 - 16:09:34 CEST