Re: Sql Server 7 vs Oracle 8

This sounds like people just sticking up for whatever platform they are used to. For the vast majority of Database users either one works just fine. I use both. I did find that Oracle was easier to learn, but there was a lot less "readable" material on Oracle available to the normal dba that doesn't have a fortune 100 company to pull info from.

Oracle Workgroup Server and Sql Server 7 are comparitively proced on the server and clients. From what I have seen for the money SQL Server has alot better repication until you get up to Oracle Enterprise Edition which is way out of most peoples price range.

A note on this is whether you like SQL Server or not is is taking over the market. That is not from a personal view, but a Gartner Group report. It is growing in Market Share 18% faster than Oracle. Mainly because of the growth of IT it is much easier to hire people that feel "comfortable" with Microsoft products. Personally I like Oracle better and hopefully with VB's new tools for Oracle which does make development on Oracle alot easier will renew interest in Oracle. I think Oracle needs to promote its Workgroup Server Line more to be competitive against Microsoft.

Just my view

Dale Sides
mgogala_at_rocketmail.com wrote in message <77et6h$88i$1_at_nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <77ed5f$ref$1_at_nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> jahorsch_at_my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> In article <76jrna$krb$1_at_nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>> mgogala_at_rocketmail.com wrote:
>> > In article <76bv9p$30q$1_at_news.worldcom.ch>,
>> > "boss" <daemon_at_worldcom.ch> wrote:
>> > > hi,
>> > > i'm looking for some information about the main difference between
Sql
>> > > server 7.0 and Oracle 8.
>> > > the advantage and disadvantage.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > Oracle8 runs on almost any conceivable platform with the possible
exception
>> > of coffee machine (I'm not sure that it doesn't), while SQL server runs
only
>> > on NT. Oracle8 has very good network connectivity with gateways to DB2,
>> > Sybase, and SQL Server which is definitely not true for SQL Server.
There
>> > are many more apps running on top of Oracle then on top of SQL Server.
>> > Oracle8 is much faster and much more tunable then SQL Server. There are
many
>> > more books published about Oracle then SQL Server, so it's easier to
learn.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Mladen Gogala
>> >
>> > -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>> > http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>> >
>>
>> SQL Server 7.0 can do distributed joins with any DB that has a compliant
OLE
>> DB driver or even a compliant ODBC Driver right out of the box. Oracle
you
>> have to pay for these gatways where SQL Server it comes free
>
>Oracle gateways are not just for distributed queries, they can do
>transactions, too. 2PC doesn't work through OLE.
>
> along with Data
>> Tranformation Services, Scheduler,
>
>What the heck are data transformation services and Scheduler?
>
>>OLAP support, etc. By the time you get
>
>OLAP support? What kind of of OLAP support? Excel? I'm afraid that the
>world of relational databases has completely different terminology.
>
>> all of this for Oracle you just bought your Oracle rep a nice new car!
>
>I'm not so sure about that, either. As a general rule, you pay for the
things
>what they are worth. You can get 5 years old Ford Escort for $2000 and a
new
>BMW 850i costs a bit more. Your argumentation is essentially this: they
both
>have 4 wheels, so why would I pay for BMW?
>
>> I am
>> not ripping Oracle. Oracle has its place with scalability and stability
but
>> as far as the price and the features you get out of the box Oracle cannot
>> touch it (and will never unless Larry sells his boat.) SQL Server 7.0 > >
also
>> will require a much smaller DBA staff so I think TCO will be
substaintially
>> smaller.
>
>DBAs are not very necessary if you are running 3 NT servers, with either
>Oracle or SQL server and if you have 100,000 rows total. There are small
and
>insignifficant details like joins, views, large batch updates etc. that
>sometimes need tuning. The role of DBAs is to help optimizing performance
of
>the applications as well. 90% of DBA time in a medium sized company is not
>spent on backups, grants and monitoring, it's spent on performance tuning.
>How well is SQL Server optimizer documented, what kind of optimizer is it,
>how many people know it well? Without such a trivial thing as the knowledge
>of the optimizer, join of two 1000 rows tables will effectively read
1000000
>rows. If you plan to develop serious applications on top of any RDBMS,
better
>get yourself a decent DBA. For SQL Server those are virtually non-existant.
>Zero administration is a scam resulting in megabucks being lost for the
>companies which go for it. The truth is that you cannot do data processing
>without data processing professionals, regardless of what you've been told.
>
>> The only reason I would go to Oracle right now is database size or
>> needs to support isolation levels that SQL Server will not.
>
>Whaddya mean by "isolation level"? If ain't ACID it ain't relational
database,
>either. (ACID = Atomicity, Consistency, Isolation, Durability). If you can
>see the outcome of other transactions before they have commited, you'll
>get wrong results, plain and simple. You'll get cancelled transactions in
>your monthly financial reports. It can be very funny, you know.
>
>
>>
>> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>>
>
>Mladen Gogala
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Received on Thu Jan 14 1999 - 10:16:14 CST