Re: Does Oracle8i have a job scheduler?

"MK" <mk_at_qwest.net> wrote in message
news:aRjR6.2819$zo3.794324_at_news.uswest.net...
> It sounds to me like the questioner isn't familiar with EITHER system,
 thus
> the question to those of you who might be able to answer quickly. Instead,
> they get a juvenile diatribe about a "second rate database", and not
 reading
> the manuals. Odd that Sybase is included on the list of REAL databases,
 when
> everyone (should) know that SQL Server grew from the Sybase code, although
> it's much improved since that version. Anyway, a simple yes or no would
 have
> been sufficient. I didn't see any indication that the poster was familiar
> with either system.
>
> As a SQL Server DBA for 10 years, I find the documentation very easy to
 use
> and search.

Absolutely agreed (though I still long for paper manuals, a nice cup of tea and my favourite cigarette whilst studying horizontally on the sofa)

>Having had to also work with Oracle for the past year, I find
> their documentation very difficult to use.

Also agreed. I'm biased, I know, but even I don't understand the documentation until someone shows me *just once*. THEN it makes sense (but that's not much use to a neophyte looking for guidance).

>And don't get me started on how
> "wonderful" this "real" database is.

Oh, go on! Get started!

>We've had more problems with Oracle in
> the last year than I've experienced with SQL Server in the last 10. And
> finding qualified people to help us has been next to impossible.

Trust me. One only has to hang out in this newsgroup for a few nights to discover a whole bevvy of totally unqualified people more than ready to throw in their tuppence-worth (which is about *all* it's worth). Most appear to have been employed by assorted members of the Fortune 500, so that makes it alright then.

>Even Oracle
> support just shrugs and is no help on many of the problems we have. And
 this
> is with a small (2GB) Oracle Financials installation.

Come on! Size isn't everything. So I'm told.

>Meanwhile our main
> apps run on SQL Server, are 100GB and growing, and running very smoothly.
> There is currently a push by management to get rid of Oracle and Oracle
> Financials, because of all the problems and the lack of support.
>

I'll actually agree. Cough. Splutter. Having dabbled in SQL Server 2000 for a mere 5 weeks, I found it an absolute delight to use. BLOBS worked first time, the GUI tools don't cripple a 1GHz client, and actually perform their intended tasks with a minimum of spinning cogs and spurious nonsense, and performance was fine.

I regretted the lack of an easy command line interface, however, and if I was criminally insane enough to want a Unix server backend, I'd be as stuffed as the Christmas turkey (this is my home network we're talking about, you understand. Unix is fine for the workplace. In its place, as it were).

What you get with Oracle is a huge amount of control, scalability, reliability, cross-platform migration options, and robustness. You won't find long running transactions are a problem (governed purely by physically available space). Guaranteed never to lose a committed transaction. Superbly engineered. Downright clever. BUT... it takes skill and knowledge to get even the minimum of the best out of it, whereas any old fool can click an OK button. (And no, I'm not suggesting you or your colleagues are either old or fools -just that if I can get an acceptable SQL Server database going in 3 days, I guess anyone can).

> I realize this is an Oracle group, but I certainly don't get a good
 feeling
> about learning any more about Oracle when I see responses like this.
>

I don't blame you. It is not always thus, however. And if you have particular problems with Oracle, you can always ask here.

Lead on, MacDuff.

Regards
HJR
>
> Mike
>
> "Jim Kennedy" <kennedy-family_at_home.com> wrote in message
> news:M8tP6.54906$p33.1167440_at_news1.sttls1.wa.home.com...
> > I think part of the problem is that the SQL Server Docs are very
 difficult
> > to use. By that I mean it is very difficult to find certain things.
 The
> > documentation is via a GUI interface and is written in a sort of "sound
> > bite" method. I had a heck of a time finding information on certain
 things
> > when I was forced to use Sql Server. The Oracle docs on the other hand
 are
> > very complete. I usually pull up my browser and start witht he index of
 all
> > the subjects and go from there. Have a question on SQL syntax? I click
 on
> > the Oracle and pl/sql reference which brings me to a list of topcs one
 of
> > which is titled SQL Reference (gee what a good name). I click on that
 and
> > get taken to the whole SQL Reference book. Then I can choose what I
 want
> > (e.g. grants or alter database).
> >
> > I just think that they have not tried to use the documentation because
 the
> > SQL Server documentation is so hard to find most things. You are right;
> > they should make an attempt to look in the docs first. Also MS
 marketing
> > gives the impression that MS products are superior and innovative; far
> > beyond mortal men.
> >
> > Jim
> >
> > "Daniel A. Morgan" <dmorgan_at_exesolutions.com> wrote in message
> > news:3B0DFFCD.AD68E1E2_at_exesolutions.com...
> > > Jim wrote:
> > >
> > > > I have been told that SQL Server includes a job scheduling component
> > > > that allows a user to have "jobs" (queries, loads, etc, I guess)
> > > > setup to run unattended at specific times. Does Oracle8i 8.1.7 EE
> > > > include this feature?
> > >
> > > Don't take this personally ... but ... does anyone who started with
 SQL
> > > Server EVER READ A MANUAL?
> > >
> > > Or a book?
> > >
> > > Or the documentation?
> > >
> > > It seems like everyone of you starts of your questions with "SQL
 Server
> > > does this does Oracle" like somehow you expect a second rate database
 to
> > > have a capability not present in Oracle, or DB/2 Universal Server, or
> > > Informix, or Sybase,or any other industrial strength RDBMS.
> > >
> > > I would never think of trying to work in SQL Server without buying and
> > > reading a book or two. How come you folks can't or won't do the same?
 It
> > > is just weird. The answer to your question is right on your hard disk
 or
> > > on the CD you installed from.
> > >
> > > Daniel A. Morgan
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Thu May 31 2001 - 04:51:41 CDT