Re: SQL server Vs Oracle

AJ wrote in message <7gn9in$jaq$1_at_news.ses.cio.eds.com>...

>Having said that (and yes, I am currently using SQL Server),
>for most applications SQL Server is lower cost (Oracle is 3
>to 12 times more expensive according the a recent study by
>the Gartner Group) and adequate for everything but very large databases.

Seeing that we are qouting market research and stats here - Oracle is showing a 42% increase in growth over the 17% increase in growth of SQL-Server for the last year according to an IT newspaper I read a few months ago. And these figures are for Windows-NT!!

But then most marketing stats are bull and I some of the biggest crap I ever read came from the Gartner Group.

SQL-Server may be adequate for everything but very large databases (though I have strong doubts about this statement) - but the emphasis here is on -adequate-. Not good. Not ideal. Not robust. Not mature. Not scalable. Not flexible. Not powerful. Adequate.

>SQL Server as a general rule also has lower support and hardware
>requirements.

The reason for lower levels of support is because SQL-Server attempts to automate many of the functions a DBA usually performs. For a small database, SQL-Server's attempt at playing the role of a DBA works. On larger databases - well I rather have a real DBA doing the administration of a database containing critical data than to trust the people who designed and wrote Windows'95 to play software DBA for me.

As for hardware requirements. I disagree. Oracle's hardware footprint is related to what you are trying to do with it. And this does not necessarily involve data volume as complexity also plays a critical role.

>The biggest plus of Oracle is that it runs on unix as well as
>NT.

IMHO the biggest plus of Oracle is that IT IS SIMPLY BETTER THAN SQL-SERVER. Period.

There - I said it. I feel better already. Please flame away. :-)

If cost is an issue and you simply need something better to replace an Access database, then by all means go for SQL-Server. Or even Interbase (I think it's even cheaper than SQL-Server with an even smaller software footprint). But if you are getting you feet wet with client-server architecture and a growing database and expanding user requirements... Think twice before simply buying into Microsoft's SQL-Server strategy as that will tie you to Microsoft's closed systems strategy.

regards,
Billy Received on Wed May 05 1999 - 07:32:42 CDT