LOL... r u talking about mss 4.21?
"Phh" <porushh_at_bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:rpo18.73489$HW3.77037_at_newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> Oracle versus Microsoft Sqlserver 2000
> SQL SERVER TECHNICAL LIMITATIONS
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> By Faulkner, Kent (kent.faulkner_at_trane.com) USA
>
> 1. Single platform dependancy.
>
> SQL Server is only operable on the Windows platform, and this is a major
> limitation for it to be an enterprise solution. Oracle is available on
> multiple platforms such as Windows, all flavours of Unix from vendors
> such as Ibm, Sun, Digital, HP, Sequent, etc. and VAX-VMS as well as MVS.
> The multi-platform nature of Oracle makes it a true enterprise solution.
>
> 2. Locking / concurrency
>
> SQL Server has no multi-version consistency model which means that
"writers
> block readers and readers block writers" to ensure data integrity. In
> contrast, with Oracle the rule is "readers dont block writers and writers
> dont block readers". This is possible without compromising data
> integrity because Oracle will dynamically re-create a read-consistent
> image for a reader of any requested data that has been changed but not
> yet committed. In other words, the reader will see the data as it was
> before
> the writer began changing it (until the writer commits). SQL Server's
> locking scheme is much simpler (less mature) and will result in a lot
> of delays/waits in a heavy OLTP environment.
>
> Also, SQL Server will escalate row locks to page level locks when too
many
> rows on a page are locked. This locks rows which are uninvolved in any
> updates for no good reason.
>
> 3. PERFORMANCE and TUNING
>
> a. No control of sorting (memory allocation)
>
> b. No control over SQL Caching (memory allocation)
>
> c. No control over storage/space management to prevent fragmentation. All
> pages (blocks) are always 8k and all extents are always 8 pages (64k).
This
> means you have no way to specify larger extents to ensure contiguous
space
> for large objects.
>
> d. No range partioning of large tables and indexes eg. in Oracle a large
> 100 GB table can be seamlessly partitioned at the database level into
range
> partitions, for eg. an invoice table can be partitioned into monthly
> partitions. Such partitioned tables and partitioned indexes give
> performance and maintenance benefits and are transparent to the
> application.
>
> e. No Log miner facility. Oracle 8i and 9i supply a Log Miner which
> enables inspection of archived redo logs. This comes free with the
> database. But in the case of Sql Server, external products from
> other companies have to be purchased to do this task.
>
> f. A Sql-Server dba claimed that fully qualifying the name in code
> would lead to performance gains of 7% to 10%. There are no dictionary
> performance problems like that in Oracle. Oracle would have some gains
> if it fully qualified all names - say 0.01 percent. That shows the
> difference in the internal database technology between Oracle and MS.
>
> 4. MISSING OBJECT TYPES
> a. No public or private synonyms
> b. no independent sequences
> c. no packages ie. collection of procedures and functions.
>
> 5. PROGRAMMING
>
> a. Significant extensions to the ANSI SQL-92 standard which means
> converting
> applications to a different database later will be a challenge (code
> re-write).
>
> b. No inbuilt JAVA database engine as in Oracle. In Oracle, Java classes
> can be loaded and executed in the database itself, thus adding the
> database's security and scalability to Java applications.
>
> c. Stored Procedures are not compiled until executed (overhead).
>
> d. No ability to read/write from external files from a stored procedure.
>
> e. Oracle Sql and Pl/Sql are more powerful and can do things better than
> Microsoft
> Transact-Sql. Try to sum up a column by each month, and show the
totals
> for the month, in Sql Server you do it in a complicated way in T-Sql.
> In Oracle it takes one sql statement grouping by the
> trunc(<datecolumn>,'month') function.
>
> f. In Sql Server, you cannot issue a "create or replace" for either
> procedures or views, in Oracle you can. This one facility simplifies
> code writing, since in Sql Server the procedure or view must be
> dropped first, in Oracle there is no need.
>
>
> 6. CLUSTER TECHNOLOGY
> In clustering technology, Oracle is light years ahead, since
> Sql server has nothing like Oracle Parallel server - 2 instances
> acting on the SAME data in active-active configurations. And with
> the new version of Parallel Server in Oracle 9i, renamed as the
> Oracle real application cluster, there is diskless contention
> handling of read-read, read-write, write-read, and write-write
> contention between the instances. This diskless contention
> handling is called Cache Fusion and it means for the first
> time, any application can be placed in a cluster without
> any changes, and it scales upwards by just adding another
> machine to the cluster. Microsoft has nothing like this.
>
>
> SUMMARY.
> SQL Server is clearly positioned between MS-ACCESS and ORACLE in terms of
> functionality, performance, and scalability. It makes a work group level
> solution (small number of users with small amount of data).
>
> Oracle is much more advanced and has more to offer for larger
applications
> with both OLTP and Data Warehouse applications. Its new clustering
features
> are ideal for Application service providers (ASPs) on the internet
> who can now start with a cluster of 2 small servers and grow by just
> adding a server when they need to. Besides, Oracle's multi-platform
> capability makes it the most convincing argument for an enterprise.
>
> Footnote:
> Oracle is the first commercial Sql database and is 25 years old in 2002,
> ie. it has been around since 1977. Larry Ellision the founder of Oracle
> has been championing the Sql language before there was any company around
> like Microsoft.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Thu Jan 17 2002 - 04:15:11 CST
