Re: SQL server Vs Oracle

>1 - Oracle runs on more plateforms than Microsoft SQL Server

And your point is? This is a concern only if considering a very large database. Or you just don't like the wintel conglomerate. Personnally, I try to base decisions on what's best for the customer (most cost-effective) not on my personal preferences.

>2 - SQL statement in Oracle are closest to standard than SQL server

Can you give an example of this? All dbms's have extensions but you don't have to use them.

>3 - Oracle had a greater part of the SQL C/S market than SQL Server, so
>you will find more specialist on Oracle designing.

There's also a shortage of qualified people and SQL Server has a *much* lower learning curve especially for developers that have done Access. I was able to pick it up with (initially) no real training. One of the advantages of mikeysoft is their consistency. Once you've been brainwashed it all looks the same...

>4 - Larry Ellison had make a 1 million $ bet to anyone can demonstrate
>that Oracle is under 100 time faster than SQL server
>And the bet has not been paid yet !!!

If you need a system that you can throw tens of millions of dollars at...go with a unix based dbms.

>5 - the strategy of Microsoft is to make you a prisonner of thoses
>systems, so that, when your data will be on a MS system, it will ever
>coste a lot : to maintain version or to migrate... MS is a super,
>maximized, and optimized making money machine and that's all !
And that's different from any of the major companies because...

You know, it's funny. All of these arguments seem to come down to 'less filling' vs 'tastes great' debate. Since there are no concrete numbers to back up either side (other than SQL Server is probably cheaper and Oracle is more scalable because it runs on unix), we end up pointing out holes in the other. The 'official' numbers are all cooked, all products present their systems in the most favorable light.

For example, in the last week I've heard about 2 major problems with the most recent release of Oracle -- one a major security hole and the other a bug that causes C++ compilers to crash if there's a syntax error in the syntax. Does that make Oracle inherently bad? No, just proves that all software today is so complex that bugs are practically inevitable.

Until I can convince our group to do a real comparison of DBMS's (Oracle, SQL Server, Ingres, Sybase, Teradata, etc) all I can say is that SQL Server is easier to administer and from what I've seen it's as stable as the other major databases. Of course my opinion and 50 cents will buy you a cup of coffee.

AJ. Received on Thu May 06 1999 - 09:14:24 CDT