Re: Sybase vs Oracle - which is better?

kennedyleigh_at_yahoo.com wrote:
>
> In article <7318fh$4uk1_at_news.uscg.mil>,
> "P. Larsen" <plarsen_at_ballston.uscg.mil> wrote:
>
>
> > PLEASE ...
> > "Oracle cannot support more than one database in a server" ???
> > Where did you get that statement from? Any server (one machine) can run as
> > many instances of databases as you have memory and CPU power to run. I've
> > seen very FEW installations with only ONE instance per box.
>
> You are confused by terminology here. By Server I mean OS Process. The
> Sybase term 'Server' is the same as the Oracle term 'Instance'. What I was
> saying, was One Oracle Instance (ie: OS Process) can only have one Oracle
> Database, where as one Sybase Server (ie: OS Process) can have many
> Databases. Obviously you can run multiple OS processes, but that isn't very
> efficient as you are Duplicating System catalog, and other common resources.
>

IMHO, a database in Sybase is more analagous to a schema owner in Oracle. Sybase use databases to logically partition tables within an instance/server while Oracle uses schema owners. True, Sybase can have schema owners within a database but most objects are typically owned by the dbo user. This is an oversimplification of all issues but the fact that an Oracle instance contains 1 database while a Sybase server/instance contains multiple databases is a difference in terminology not architecture.

Kyle Hachey,
PLATINUM technology, inc. Received on Sun Nov 29 1998 - 00:00:00 CST