Re: Re : Losing out to SQL Server
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 09:15:56 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <1361553356.83279.YahooMailNeo_at_web162005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
I'm in agreement with Niall on this conversation and even though I am primarily Oracle, I would be a fool not to realize the incredible enhancements MSSQL has made in the way of datawarehousing and it's introduction to the big data arena, (yeah folks, it's out there and the Oracle folks are starting to notice...) Thomas Kejser does a great MSSQL and Big Data talk that he put on at MOW last year in Denmark. A number of us stuck around and talked big data without any platform bias and I was incredibly impressed with the direction the MSSQL guys were heading. As for tablespace translation in MSSQL, please read up on Filegroups, folks. Yes, that is MSSQL's version of a tablespace... :)
OK, off my soapbox... :)
Kellyn Pot'Vin
Senior Technical Consultant
Enkitec
DBAKevlar.com
RMOUG Director of Training Days 2013
~Tombez sept fois, se relever huit!
From: Niall Litchfield <niall.litchfield_at_gmail.com> To: David Barbour <david.barbour1_at_gmail.com> Cc: David Robillard <david.robillard_at_gmail.com>; ORACLE-L <oracle-l_at_freelists.org>; wblanchard_at_oshkoshcorp.com Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 9:48 AM
Subject: Re: Re : Losing out to SQL Server
On Feb 17, 2013 3:34 PM, "David Barbour" <david.barbour1_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>Quoting Dan Morgan
>
> " . I'm not
> sure exactly why, but SQL Server has always had trouble with corruption of
> these link-list pointers. Run DBCC to check (and fix) problems with these
> pointers. No comparable issue exists within Oracle."
I like Dan but I do have a couple of problems with this statement, the
first being that I've never seen this, I'd be interested if anyone else
has. The second though is that I have seen a really nasty bug (ORA-00600
kdsgrp1 where Oracle can't find a row continuation because the pointer from
the row header points to the wrong block ) now I'll freely admit this isn't
a linked list issue, but it is a corrupt pointer issue, and of course
theres no dbcc to fix it.
> Additionally, Oracle is still way ahead of SQLServer when it comes to
> Scalability, Load Balancing, High Availability, and Recoverability.
>
> Yes, there are plenty of 'workarounds' in SQLServer to produce
> functionality that approaches Oracle in these areas (see MSDN or just
> Google) but many involve a degree of cost or management
expertise/attention
> that makes them somewhat unsatisfactory.
I'd argue that any proper scalability or availability solution requires significant expertise and management
As an example, remembering that a
> SQLServer 'Database' equates to a tablespace in Oracle,
A tablespace in Oracle does *not* equate to a database in MSSQL (well see how pluggable databases work in 12c mind I bet they turn out to be an extension of transportable tablespaces), nor does an MSSQL database equate to a schema in Oracle. A database in MSSQL is, just as in Oracle a set of files managed by an rdbms instance, it can contain multiple schemas, multiple users, multiple files and filegroups and so on.
I'm not particularly arguing for or against Oracle for the requirements here, but I do get annoyed when arguments are presented as fact when they aren't.
-- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Fri Feb 22 2013 - 18:15:56 CET