In article <rNF%3.5266
$K5.933749_at_typhoon2.gnilink.net>,
"Christopher Payne" <crpayne_at_bellatlantic.net>
wrote:
> I've been developing for Oracle7 and Oracle8
for the past two years. Before
> that I used SQL Server (and its parent -
Sybase) for few years. I'm
> certified by Microsoft as a DBA and Developer.
>
> As you might guess from the list below, I favor
SQL Server over Oracle,
> except for anything except large (> 1TB on a
single machine) solutions.
> That's a gross generalization - your
circumstances may dictate
> otherwise.Below are my reasons.
>
> For Oracle:
> - Better single-box scalability
> - PL/SQL Packages
> - Better platform-neutrality
>
> Against Oracle
> - Cost
> - Hard to manage
> - Less capable development and management tools.
> - Hard to find information
>
> For SQL Server
> - Cost
> - Ease of use
> - Better SQL Server, SQL and NT performance
monitoring and debugging tools
> - Better integration with other MS technologies
(IIS, ADO, ODBC, Office)
> - T-Sql offers more and better functionaility
than PL/SQL
> - Active/Active failover with MSCS and SQL/E
> - Better hot backup capabilities
> - Better distributed heterogenous database
capability.
>
> Against SQL Server
> - Single-box scalability.
> - Lesser support for platform-neutral
technologies
> - Can't run multiple versions on one box.
>
> Tossup
> - Performance. In my opinion that is more
dependent on the skill of the devs
> and DBAs than the DMBS.
> - Row level locking was introduced in SQL
Server7
> - Parallel query was introduced in SQL Server7
>
> Differing opinion to your list below:
> > Only able to recover from last full backup
(SQL minus)
> > Datafile backups only(SQL minus)
> > Able to recover to point in time to failure
(From Oracle benefit list)
> > Hot, cold, logical backup options (From
Oracle benefit list)
> > Changed block level backups available (From
Oracle benefit list)
> You can recover a SQL Server database using the
last full backup plus the
> incremental backups. SQL Server does hot
backups, which are done on a page
> by page basis, and do not interrupt the
database's availability. Using the
> backups plus the transaction logs lets you
restore to the point in time of
> failure.
>
> > ANSI SQL Support only (SQL minus)
> Microsoft? Not "embrace and extend?" :). T-SQL
is not part of ANSI SQL.
> Oracle needs to catch up with SQL Server with
regards to standard SQL
> support.
>
> > Few performance tuning options (SQL minus)
> Look at the NT performance monitor, and the SQL
Monitor for performance
> diagnostics. Developers can use the "show plan"
functionality to clue them
> into performance bugs.
>
> > Single database per server (SQL minus)
> By "single database" are you referring to only
having a single SQL Server
> process? You can have multiple databases per
server, all being served from a
> single SQL Server process.
>
> --
> Christopher Payne, MCSE
>
> "Doug Coan" <dcoan_at_aegonusa.com> wrote in
message
> news:81ekgs$7n9$1_at_nnrp1.deja.com...
> >
> >
> > Ok guys and girls - This is an issue that
keeps on comming back. So, I
> > would like to start a true features and
functionality comparison. I'll
> > probably put it out on a web page in time.
Here is the start of a list
> > that took me about 5 minutes to develop.
Please add or dispute to your
> > hearts content. Prove me right or wrong. I
don't care. Thanks
> > much..........
> >
> > My experience is 1 year with Oracle
supporting 50+ instances on over 20
> > servers, 4 years with Sybase on about 12
servers, 2 with MSSQL < 7 on a
> > few servers and a two recent MSSQL 7.0
servers. Sybase however, is no
> > longer is a contender in this argument in my
opinion.
> >
> > Please enjoy the following as a starting
point only.............
> >
> > For Oracle
> >
> > Supports multiple platforms (NT, Unix, Linux)
> > Many performance tuning options
> > Supports multiple instances per server
> > Supports shared server setup
> > Parallel query and parallel server
> > Sequences for automating item increments
> > Packages for improved performance
> > Ability to Monitor/review sql
> > Significant performance information available
> > Can run multiple versions from single server
> > Support for more table index options
(reverse,iot,etc..)
> > Procedural language support and ANSI SQL in
PL/SQL
> > Standby server support
> > Able to recover to point in time to failure
> > Hot, cold, logical backup options
> > Changed block level backups available
> > Row Level Locking
> > Inherent ROWID Support
> >
> > Against Oracle
> >
> > Difficult to setup
> > Complex DBA support
> > Expensive
> >
> > Against MSSQL
> >
> > NT only
> > Few performance tuning options
> > Single database per server
> > Dedicated server setup only
> > Single processes only
> > Must be coded using tables
> > Single stored procedurs
> > No SQL monitoring capabilities
> > Little performance tuning information
available
> > Only one version can be installed per server
> > Few table index option supported
> > ANSI SQL Support only
> > n/a
> > Only able to recover from last full backup
> > Cold and logical backups only
> > Datafile backups only
> > Page level locking
> > Must create own rowids
> >
> > For MSSQL
> >
> > Easy to setup
> > Simple DBA support
> > Cheap
> >
> > --
> > Doug Coan
> > Senior Client Server System Integrator
> > AEGON USA
> > dcoan_at_aegonusa.com
> >
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Received on Fri Apr 07 2000 - 10:58:06 CDT
