Re: SQL Server 7/2000 vs Oracle 8i

In article <39b0c5e9.2634428_at_news.mindspring.com>,   me wrote:
> SQL Server didn't even have row-locking until version 7, as I recall.
> Doh!

Microsoft used to be smaller than Digital Research. Doh!

What difference does the past make in current comparisons? (FUD)

>
> In either case, Oracle provides enormous flexibility in precisely
> configuring your database instance. SQL Server does not, but some
> would like SQL Server because it is easier.

>
> Triggers in Oracle are extremely flexible. With SQL Server (last time
> I checked), programmers were comparitively limited in the control they
> had over when a trigger executes.

Yes, flexibility, scalability, extensibility, reliability, stability... can you give examples? Like ...

"I had an app that I wanted a trigger to run when datavalue was > 1000 and I can embed that logic in Oracle, but in SQL I had to embed that logic in the trigger and run it on all updates. I don't know exactly how much is slowed down performance, but certainly running the trigger on every update (and it was a frequently updated field) couldn't have been good."

>
> Oracle 8i's "materalized views" (like views, but actually store data
> for perfomance) are not a feature SQL Server has yet - I *think*.
>
> I think Microsoft is getting pretty close to Oracle, but I'd still
> give the the edge (RDBMS only) to Oracle. I'll be happy when I can
> clearly articulate the view that Microsoft is best. I'm tired of
> maintaining both.

Perhaps you should clearly articulate the view that Oracle is best also.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy. Received on Fri Sep 08 2000 - 14:21:03 CDT