Path: news.easynews.com!easynews!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!news.state.mn.us!not-for-mail From: TurkBear Newsgroups: microsoft.public.sqlserver.programming,comp.databases.oracle.server,comp.databases.oracle.tools,microsoft.public.sqlserver.server Subject: Re: L:ist - Can do/do better in MS SQL than Oracle Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 12:44:49 -0600 Organization: Minnesota Governmental/Educational Agencies Lines: 112 Message-ID: <967pauo42e83fp39i4vrav8qa1u71j8pqa@4ax.com> References: <69e9c64b.0203270941.5b05708e@posting.google.com> <3ca2e7b7$0$225$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net> <3ca9d8d1.32919890@news.nl.uu.net> Reply-To: jgreco1@mn.rr.com NNTP-Posting-Host: gateway.dot.state.mn.us Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.state.mn.us 1017945893 3064 156.98.4.11 (4 Apr 2002 18:44:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@news.state.mn.us NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 18:44:53 +0000 (UTC) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 Xref: easynews microsoft.public.sqlserver.programming:226183 comp.databases.oracle.server:142070 comp.databases.oracle.tools:50406 microsoft.public.sqlserver.server:172761 X-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 11:42:39 MST (news.easynews.com) Imbedded comment- tlam15@hotmail.com (tingl) wrote: >I think what you are talking about here have more to do with >implementation and design differences rather than missing features. I >was talking about some things that can be done in one database just >flat out cannot be done in another in any way. > >> Oracle does not like mixed-case for tables and fields. (Lots >> of tools can not handle this). > >I am not sure what kind of tools you are using. I have no problems >with mixed case. Even it is a problem, it is just a matter of style. >It would be silly to say Windows file name being not case-sensitive a >missing feature. > If you create an Oracle table with some tool that allows the table names and field names to be created in mixed-case( some ETL tools, Access etc) ( or with a Create table "Mixed_Case_Name" ( "Field1" varchar2(10) , "Field2" varchar2(10) ) statement ) then to use SqlPlus ( for example ) to access that data you would need to use "s around the table_name and field name.. select "Field1","Field2" from "Mixed_Case_Name" This is a problem unless you are aware of it...Not big, but sometimes annoying... > >benbrugman@onbekend.nl (Ben Brugman) wrote in message news:<3ca9d8d1.32919890@news.nl.uu.net>... >> On 28 Mar 2002 12:52:44 -0800, tlam15@hotmail.com (tingl) wrote: >> >> Well I have seen a few things you can't do in Oracle which you can >> in SQL-server. >> >> Use serializable and expect the transactions te be serializable. >> (Yes Oracle does prefent the phenomena's discribed in SQL-92, >> but I can come up with transactions which can not be serialized >> if run together on Oracle. And serializable means that there must >> be a garantee that all finished transactions should be serializable). >> example see the further on ## >> >> Some SQL-92 syntax queries where outer and inner joins are >> used in one query could not be expressed in the Oracle syntax >> without going to a completely different query. >> >> Oracle does not like mixed-case for tables and fields. (Lots >> of tools can not handle this). >> >> I do not want to go into the discussion which is better, but there >> are differences between the two RDBMSses. And I expect that >> anything which can be done on the one can one way or the other >> be done on the other. But some things involve a lot of work in >> one RDBMS and hardly any work in the other. >> My guess is this works both ways. >> (Try to implement a after/row trigger from Oracle in SQL-server). >> >> >> ben brugman. >> >> >> >> ## >> Please do not read on if you are not interrested in the >> serializability discussion. This has been handled before on >> in several discussion groups. >> >> Serializable, standard example where the serializable of Oracle fails. >> Two accounts, with the business rule that the accounts together can >> not become sub zero. Withdrawels are done with writing extra >> information into the database (add a withdrawel row). >> >> Sequence: >> Set serializable >> Start transaction >> Read the amount available on the two accounts. >> See if there is enough money to do the withdrawel. >> Add the extra row for the withdrawel >> Commit. >> >> If this sequence is run concurrently (2 times) then it can result in a >> situation which can not happen if the sequence is run serialized (2 >> times). >> >> For a more formal explenation see : >> Making Sapshot Isolation Serializable >> http://www.cs.umb.edu/~isotest/snaptest/snaptest.pdf >> >> >> >> >Hi, >> > >> >I have worked with both SQL Server and Oracle. I have not seen >> >anything you can do with SQL Server that can't be done in Oracle. The >> >only advantage of SQL Server is ease of management and configuration. >> >It requires little attention most of the time, but the trade off here >> >is flexibility. With all things taken into consideration, I still >> >prefer Oracle to SQL Server. The main reasons are portability and >> >scalability. And most of all we do not want to be locked into any >> >single vendor. >> > >> > >> >Tony >> >www.w3base.com >> > >> >> Ben Brugman