Re: SQL Server, Oracle or Informix

In article <3a7a95fc.11218119_at_news-server>,   nsouto_at_nsw.bigpond.net.au.nospam (Nuno Souto) wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Feb 2001 05:57:25 GMT, "Patrick Dean Rusk"
> <ruskies_at_mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> >earnest, not to keep a flame war going.
> Sure. No worries.
>
> >but not easily searchable. Certainly, there are volumes of Oracle
> >information to find on the Net, but it is scattered.
> I find the html format of the latest releases quite convenient.
> But of course, YMMV.
>
> >1) Is there an up-to-date reference on performance tuning that is of
 the
> >quality of the increasingly dated 1996 O'Reilly book?
> >
> The official sites are reasonable and if you're willing to pay, there
> is some very good stuff available.
>
> I use www.ixora.com.au quite a lot. Practical, informal information
> from someone who knows heaps about the subject. From there you can
> take links to other extremelly useful sites. Tom Kyte's is
 excellent,
> so is Jonathan's. All are superb online references, and their books
> are without equal. On the books subject, I find Guy Harrison's books
> absolutely indispensable, both of them. The last one in particular
 is
> all you need in terms of a quick reference. Until someone puts the
> entire library in PalmOS format (hint,hint!), it follows me
> everywhere.
>
> >2) What is a highly regarded and affordable Oracle administration
 tool? Of
> >the shareware ones I've tried out, TOAD and EZSQL seem pretty good,
 the
> >latter being *much* less expensive.
>
> Someone else replied with a good one. I tend to go for command line
> administration, given that I now work mostly in UNIX and I rely on
 the
> tools of that OS for all sorts of on-line and remote monitoring and
> administration.
>
> One area that I feel someone could make a major difference with NT is
> to investigate the possibility of using WSH (Windows Script Host or
> whatever M$ calls it now!) to monitor and manage ORACLE. I've played
> with it and the possibilities are tremendous. With 8i and its much
> expanded PL/SQL and Java library, it shouldn't be a great problem
> getting some really nifty tools sorted out.
>
> Last time I dabbled, I was getting WSH scripts in Javascript (or VBA)
> dumping monitoring info directly into Excel and Word, using the
> command automation. It works, just needs someone with the time to
> sort it out and put a decent look on it. Perheaps you could be the
> one?
>
> >> Oh! Oracle is an OS now? And Win2K is a database server? Of
 course,
> >> silly me: yet another "redefinition" of the world by M$.
> >
> > Don't be silly! You've misread that. If you cannot use Windows,
 you
> >can't use SQL Server, because it only runs under Windows. Therefore,
 use
> >Oracle. No one's claiming Oracle is an OS (though they think it's a
 file
> >system now) or that W2K is a database server.
> >
>
> I know. I was just applying a bit of "legapullov" if you catch my
> drift. ;-) Sorry.
>
> >
> >Parallel Server (30%)
> Bah! Don't need it.
>
> >Partitioning (30%)
> I think that one is in-built in 8i.
>

It's not built in you have to pay for it and it's available only in Enterprise Edition.

> >Spatial (40%) (This was the potential killer feature that Daniel's
 GIS
> >system might need)
> What for? Relational tables are inherently super for GIS stuff
 anyway,
> why pay for something that is really not needed?
>

An example why to pay for this - if you want some GIS functionality U should consider Oracle Spatial it cost $40 per CPU and do U know how much a SDE user license costs - about $5000 per user. I dont know your needs but if you have say 100 concurent users U have to pay $500 000.

And you could achieve this with Oracle Spatial for (Server EE = 100+ Spatial = 40) * (2 CPU) * (600MHz) = 280*600=168000. U just need a visualization client which you might write say in Java for almost nothing.

> >Tuning Management Pack (10%)
> For weenies. ;-) (and mostly misleading info, too. Let's just say I
> wouldn't rely on it to tune anything...)
>

U could rely on this - it's good and smart. If you don't want to pay for Oracle Consultants try that tool. However it's questionable which is better and/or cheaper.

> >With the exception of Spatial, functionality in each of these areas
 *is*
> >included in SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition. Of course, I know
 that most
> >Oracle people will say that SS2K's implementations are much less
 functional;
> >I don't know enough about them right now to speak on that point.
>
> I was going to say you'd be lost trying to partition very large DB's
> in SS2K like you can in 8i, but I'll refrain... Been discussed here
> before. Let's not even talk about proper PK/FK implementation,
> without the need to write heaps of triggers to keep it going.
>
> >don't know about? I will be consulted regarding some major Oracle
 purchases
> >in the next few months, so I would gladly avail of any information
 that
> >would bring its prices down.
>
> I'm sure if you have a friendly chat with your local O-rep, you'll
> find they are quite amenable to reasoning.
>
> >
> > I will cheerfully admit that Microsoft's "roll out a new
 marketing name
> >every year for the COM/COM+/DNA/DNA 2000/.NET platform" strategy is
> >tiresome. However, all of the MS programmers I've known haven't had
 problems
> >keeping up, and it is very easy to bring in junior programmers and
 get them
> >immediately productive on projects.
> >
>
> That is most definitely not my experience. What I've found is that
> M$-certified people (as opposed to people who claim they know a lot
> about M$ products) are only so for the current version of whatever.
 Be
> it OS, net-related stuff, db. Mostly because M$ training is so
> expensive and the changes are so many every year that it would cost
 an
> absolute *fortune* to keep up to date on their official training
> schedule.
>
> So, what happens is that people trained on earlier versions will tend
> to mis-represent themselves as fully up-to-date on the latest stuff.
> With the result that none of the latest stuff is really applied
> properly. And the latest, whitest and brightest trainees simply lack
> any experience of production environments to be really useful. They
> tend to spend too long on the flowers and very little time preparing
> the soil, if you pardon the metaphore...
>
> Also, another little problem: the rate of new releases from M$ is so
> high that there is not enough time on the market to develop a really
> solid base of experienced and knowledgeable workforce. And no, I'm
> sorry but someone versed in OLE-1 is not up to scratch to take
> advantage, say, of ASP. And let's not go into NTLM and AD.
>
> >
> > Well, I certainly pity you if you had to spend time on the
 Microsoft
> >platform prior to NT 4, Visual Studio 6, and SQL Server 7. I would
 not have
> >eagerly broght the pre-cursors of any of those into my enterprise.
>
> Precisely. I *did* spend some quality time with those older ones.
> And the arguments put forward by M$ for people to use them are
> *exactly* the same as the ones being used now for W2K/SS2K. Once
> scalded, twice shy.
>
> >Thankfully, I was happily working with NEXSTEP and OpenStep,
 generally under
> >their version of Unix, for most of that time, hitting Sybase 4.x or
 Oracle
> >7.x.
>
> You lucky devil! ;-) (Well, I must admit my passion for UNIX has
> been on since 84 and with ORACLE since 85, but that's another story).
>
> > However, Windows 2000, SQL Server 2000, and the .NET frameworks
 are
> >going to be formidable competitors in the enterprise going forward.
 And they
> >will compete as they always have: with decent products having
 dramatically
> >lower prices that generate viral marketshare gains for them. And,
 since
> >history usually repeats itself, the giants in their arenas will wait
 too
> >long to respond in kind. Remember any companies called Ashton-Tate,
> >WordPerfect, Lotus, Novell, and Netscape? The last, at least, got
 themselves
> >bought while they still commanded a decent price. (And look how well
 iPlanet
> >has done...).
>
> Let's not forget that M$ (first with Sybase, now with SS) has been in
> the database arena against Oracle for the last 8 years by my
> reckoning. In this industry, that's eons. So far they failed to
 make
> the slightest dent. I don't think that is going to change. In case
> you haven't noticed, Oracle hasn't been what one would call "quiet"
 on
> those fronts either. Their latest stuff is starting to make a lot of
> sense too. 8i in particular is absolutely stunning and there is no
> other database anywhere that even compares in functionality and
 breath
> of potential applications.
> >
> > Note, btw, that IBM has recognized this and has priced their DB2
> >database competitively with Microsoft's.
> >
>
> Don't worry, if it comes to a price war, Oracle can match those too.
> Right now they don't need, 8i is so far superior to DB2/SS it's not
> even worth it. But I agree, they will start docking the prices.
>
> > Sorry. I didn't mean for this to be long.
>
> 'sOK, my attention span is longer than the proverbial 30 seconds.
:-)
>
> >
> >
> >P.S. I love your Web site.
> >
>
> Thanks. It will get better, I just need the time.
>
> Cheers
> Nuno Souto
> nsouto_at_bigpond.net.au.nospam
> http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/the_Den/index.html

Sorry If anyone feels offended.

Regards,
Michael Daskaloff
http://www.tlogica.com

Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/ Received on Mon Feb 05 2001 - 16:50:53 CST