Re: Oracle versus Sqlserver

Whoa! My comments interspersed below:

Daniel Morgan

Dana Day wrote:

> "Daniel A. Morgan" <damorgan_at_exesolutions.com> wrote in message news:<3C4C03B8.6745A98D_at_exesolutions.com>...
> > And any comments about the most important differences between them such as multiversioning, the transaction models, and locking?
> >
> > Daniel Morgan
>
> Only from a high level. As I said before, I don't consider myself an
> expert on the internals of either engine.
>
> Locking is addressable via ANSI standards in both.

This is pure nonsense. The locking models are totally different. Try to do a non-blocking update or delete in SQL Server and you will quickly find out that your references to ANSI standards are lacking in relevance.

> Multiversioning in Oracle has bitten me many times. The same logical
> model in SQL Server has fewer issues. Oracle gets better performance
> out of the same logical model.

Same logical model? SQL Server has no multiversioning.

> I admin instances for both platforms. In general, I find SQL Server
> easier to deal with 80 percent of the time. But when there are
> problems with the database internals, Oracle presents more options for
> resolution.

> The downside to Oracle in my view is the flexibility it presents to a
> DBA.
> It is so easy to sub-optimize an Oracle system. It is much harder to
> degrade a SQL Server. This assumes a similar or identical logical and
> physical structure.
>
> However, when you have tweaked SQL Server as far as possible, Oracle
> is just getting its tuning possiblities started.
>
> If you have the resources to do it, Oracle will probably take you
> further. But if you have constraints on resources, either in hardware
> or staffing, SQL Server will take you most of the way with
> considerably less time and effort.

Sort of the same argument I would use to get MySQL. Only with MySQL you don't have to pay for it.

>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Dana Day
> SQL Server/Sybase/Oracle DBA
Received on Tue Jan 22 2002 - 06:54:04 CST