Ethel Aardvark wrote:
> I can pretty much guarantee that you will not be able to find anything
> of much use. True, there are a good many comparisons about the place,
> but most are so clearly biased that they can be discounted
> immediately.
> Many of the remainders compare based on criteria such as a "feature
> list" (e.g., "XML Support" - meaninglessly vague) or some aspects
> which do not make a fair comparison.
> Personally, I suspect most people writing comparisons have their minds
> made up before they start work!
>
> Good luck anyway.
>
> ETA
>
> "Phil" <philrk_at_alltel.net> wrote in message news:<ckK8a.17471$u12.6366591_at_news.alltel.net>...
>
>>Looking for a completed evaluation comparing Oracle with MS SQL Server. Any
>>ideas?
Also,
When you look at feature-to-feature comparisons, you have to look under
the covers to see how they are implemented. For instance, Oracle 9.2
and SQL$erver both claim to do clustering -- but look under the covers
and see which one does real clustering that is transparent to the app
and which requires the application to be 'cluster aware'. Both
databases do row level locking, but which one escalates locks to the
block (page) level and then table level and what is the impact on
salability does that have.
All in all, when making a comparison of two database servers remember
three things:
1. Look behind the curtain because what that little man is doing IS
IMPORTANT.
2. What platform are you going to deploy on now, what platform will you
be on in five or ten years and what is the likelihood that the database
you choose now will be supported on that platform?
3. The price of the database, like the price of a wedding ring, is only
the down payment brother.
--
AjA
Received on Tue Mar 04 2003 - 12:03:16 CST
