Re: MS SQL server VS Oracle

OK, my 2 cents - and this is probably a dangerous group to be mentioning this in, but...

MS pricing is thick in my opinion - their major advantage was lower cost to get going and generally lower cost to keep running. Jacking up the price is going to eliminate one of their major advantages. SQL Server is in my experience very stable -NT is another story! (Prefer Linux myself.) SQL Server 7.0 is an extremely capable db system that I have personally managed for 24x7 shops with no downtime due to SQL Server with tables with the afore mentioned multiple millions of rows on pretty sizeable databases. The biggest problem I had in performance was related more to the db design rather than to SQL Server. (Why does anyone think that storing massively wide rows is going to help performance?) 7.0 is quite a bit faster than 6.5x - we had Compaq 4 cpu boxes with raid 5 and were getting very satisfactory results for a series of financial applications.

Oracle - really fail to see why this is the leading database other than the power of their marketing - which I've met and dislike nearly as much as I dislike MS marketing clowns. It is a major pain to run with every shop needing a very competent dba to keep the dang thing running. The DBA/ADMIN GUI tools are better than they were but are still well behind SQL Server, or even Sybase ASE 12.0 . Finally realized the only way to properly deal with Oracle is to move back to sqlplus and svrmgrl - Oracle just doesn't quite get the GUI thing. I've got a dual cpu Dell with two SCSI controllers and multiple disks and the Oracle GUI stuff, probably due to doing everything through Java, are just plain slow. But I'm pretty comfortable with the command line anyway. Oracle has a bazillion switches, some of which conflict with other switches, most of which are difficult to get information on. For SQL Server I have one book (Inside SQL Server 7.) that has pretty much everything I need to manage SQL Server very effectively. For Oracle I currently have 5 books on my desk and am forever bouncing between them to figure out some of the most arcane problems. Oracle is job security in the extreme - but then that's why I took the current job that let's me get into this and then up my salary.

In terms of performance on NT SQL Server seems to run just as well as Oracle. Oracle gets a boost here in my opinion by being available on UNIX and the boxes you can get there. (Sorry, but I really fail to see the need for a server with a GUI. Run several Linux boxes with no GUI - few with no monitor and everything just cooks.) Maybe if MS gets split SQL Server will get ported to UNIX and then we'll see how it does on that platform.

Rich Mycroft
(DB Master - If they can have Web Masters then I can be a DB Master!)

"Dmitry Pugachev" <dev_at_ellink.ru> wrote in message news:8k49rg$b8l$1_at_news.sovam.com...
> Hi,
>
> I think this message about new pricing just announced by Microsoft
> will be interesting:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 7:11 AM
> > To: SQL 2000 Discussions
> > Subject: SQL 2000 Licensing
> >
> > Does this seem ridiculous to anyone else? Our current cost for a dual
> > processor SQL box running Enterprise Edition, used exclusively for
> > connecting to web servers is approximately $14,000. ($7000 - Enterprise
> > Edition, $3500 x 2 Internet connectors = $7000 more).
> >
> > Under the new licensing structure, our cost for the same box would /
 will
> > be $40,000. This does not include the OS.
> >
> > Am I missing something??
> >
> > Check it out yourself:
> > http://www.microsoft.com/directaccess/products/windowsdna/market.asp
> >
>
> Hth,
> Dmitry Pugachev, Oracle DBA
>
>
> David Pomphrey - DNP <High.Flight_at_btinternet.com> ñîîáùèë â íîâîñòÿõ
> ñëåäóþùåå:39649DAC.5169_at_btinternet.com...
> > Oracle (standard edition) can be cheaper than MS Sql Server.
> >
> > This is based on pure licence costs alone - never mind total cost of
> > ownership.
> >
> >
> > As regards MS Sql Server - how many simultaneous transactions will the
> > DB need to support? Oracle has better concurrency.
> >
> > If anyone starts mentioning TPC-C benchmarks (or similar) as a reason
> > for getting a product then that is your early-morning-wake-up call to
> > start looking for a better job with a better employer. Marketing has
> > clearly started to overrule careful consideration of the technology
> > whenever the debate gets to that stage.
> >
> > There is almost no worse way to pick a product than looking at
> > benchmarks alone.
> >
> >
> > 3 million ( 3,000,000) rows is nothing special in the enterprise
> > database arena. Oracle will chew through tens of hundereds of millions
> > of rows no problem.
> >
> > 3 billion ( 3,000,000,000 ) rows is a bit more unusual.
> >
> >
> >
> > Notwithstanding the above, it all comes down to choosing the best tool
> > for the job. Unfortunately the decision making process is often
> > influenced by a mixture of hearsay, prejudice, inappropriate statistics
> > and supposition.
> >
> >
> > Caveat Emptor.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > David N. Pomphrey OCP |DBA| MCP |TCP/IP| B.Tech.
> >
> > Glasgow, Scotland.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) : http://www.ietf.org/
> >
> > 'Standards Track' RFCs : ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/std/std1.txt
> >
> >
> > ======================================================================
>
>
Received on Fri Jul 07 2000 - 00:00:00 CDT