Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid |
![]() |
![]() |
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.misc -> Re: Oracle-MS SQL compatibility
M Henwood wrote:
> We have client applications written in both VB and Access hitting a SQL 6.5
> back end. We use triggers and views (all maintained with ERWIN and thus
> easily transported).
>
> We would like to utilize Oracle as a backend also but we are unfamiliar
> with compatibility.
>
> Q - do we have a problem?
Most likely.
> Q - is there a compatibility setting or settings in Oracle to have it
> "look" like SQL 6.5 .
Oracle is not directly compatible with SQLServer (or vice versa). Theyhave different syntax, enhancements etc. It is unlikely and undesirable to loss the IMHO superior database to "look like" SQLServer.
Oracle can be contacted to via ODBC. However, in the case of Access only one ODBC connection can be open at a time. This could make using both SQLServer and Oracle at the same time impossible or at best very difficult. Oracle and several third parties have ODBC drivers. Major issues are likely to be performance.
There are program language support to speak to Oracle. OCI and proC come to mind. Both are C/C++ interfaces to Oracle. They provide unlimited numbers of connections to Oracle from within the C/C++ code. Obviously you need some C skills and more skills to integrate C or a C library with VB. OCI is free with the Oracle server. ProC is free on Unix platforms and
around $3000/developer under NT ie Oracle Developer 2000.
Oracle has a OpenConnection tool for reading and writing to SQLServer
from within Oracle using Oracle SQL. The connection layer does the
conversion. Oracle can see and change anything in the SQLServer
database that one has rights to see or change. Connection to the other
database(s) via OpenConnection is via SQLNet, Oracle's native transport
layer and is very fast.
From the SQLServer side, the OpenConnection layer looks like a log in.
SQLServer cannot directly talk to the Oracle database.
Sounds good right. Price tag $10-14,000. Yes that is correct. Nice solution, pretty pricy.
Mike Krolewski
> Any help would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Mark
Received on Mon Nov 09 1998 - 01:13:17 CST
![]() |
![]() |