Re: Oracle and PICK

From: Bruce Holt <>
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 19:02:05 GMT
Message-ID: <Nafgc.10977$>

"Laconic2" <> wrote in message
> It's been claimed in this forum that there's no empirical data to compare
> TCO between Oracle and PICK.
> Oracle has a larger market share than PICK. That's empirical evidence.
> I would never claim that it's conclusive evidence. But it is evidence.
> I can't believe it's unrelated to TCO.
(Yes, I'm returning to the original statement, bypassing all the replies of those with fists and hackles raised in defense of their own opinions, some of them even resorting to name calling.)

Although market share CAN indicate TCO, it's more an indicator of marketing expertise and $$$. TCO (containing the word "Total") comprises a lot of things. What is the initial investment (OS, Application and ancillary software, hardware, infrastructure, etc.)? What are recurring fees? What does it cost to maintain? How much do we pay for personnel? Since I have been involved in both camps here represented, I'd like to just comment that, in my experience, at times the relational model has been more appropriate and held a lower TCO than the MV (MultiValue or "Pick") model. In most cases, however, the reverse has been true. But, I think this is has more to do with the fact that my situation deals predominantly with businesses and even more specifically with manufacturers.

Why, in these cases, has the TCO been lower for the MV model? Going back to the above mentioned components of TCO, the MV model surpassed the relational model on the initial investment (check out licensing fees, the rest like hardware and infrastructure can be similar if not identical), the recurring fees (license renewals, etc.), maintenance fees (look 'em up...they're all published and maintenance programming and professional services by MV professionals is 2/3 or less of what is standard by Oracle and other relational professionals) and personnel costs (MV does not require DBA', nary a one! Of course, it is advisable to have someone knowledgeable on staff). There is more, but these things represent the bulk of TCO, IMHO and in these cases. This, my evidence, has been measured in monies paid to me (reflecting the word "COST" in TCO) and my various partners over the course of 22 years (is this a long enough test period???) and MV has "won out" in most cases DUE to a lower TCO.

Referring back to some posts with references to scientific studies and articles/books published touting the advantages and strengths of the relational model I say, "So what?" The bottom line in a business cares little for what technology is published or not! The bottom line IS "the bottom line!" There are businesses who are Oracle shops out of snobbery only. They care not about TCO. The same happens in the MV community. Sometimes they go the MV route BECAUSE of TCO and care not about appropriate technological "fit". Both get hosed over the long run.

Therefore, I shall end by saying that both technologies obviously have their place and, when utilized to the advantages and strengths of each, they have and will continue to work well and will provide a low TCO. In some instances, the relational model is appropriate. The same goes for the MV model.

My 2

I now return you to your infighting.

--Bruce (MCSA, MCSE, CLIPPER/dbase/FoxBASE/SQL Server/Access programmer, MV professional for 22 years, in IT since 1976) Received on Sat Apr 17 2004 - 21:02:05 CEST

Original text of this message