Re: Oracle vs. MS SQL Server

From: Niall Litchfield <n-litchfield_at_audit-commission.gov.uk>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:48:18 -0000
Message-ID: <3e674393$0$228$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net>

"CS" <sheley_at_interaccess.com> wrote in message news:fZn9a.5615$fa.2433810_at_dca1-nnrp1.news.algx.net...
> We support 100 companies nation wide and of those, 5 have Oracle and the
> rest MSSQL. They are all running on NT
>
> Recent upgrades to our product with implementation, cost run 2x higher on
> Oracle than MSSQL

Is it perhaps possible that the fact that 95% of your business is on one platform means that the other platform is more difficult and costly for you to develop and maintain on.

>
> Oracle seems to be an essay test instead of pick and choose.

I'd agree with that and suggest that it is a good thing. It means you need to know what you are doing with Oracle. I'll take education over ignorance any day.

>
> Clients seem to report more downtime with oracle due to corruption. I
won't
> swear to it but it seems that way.

If you mean physical corruption, then it can by definition have nothing to do with Oracle, its the hardware. If, as is more likely you mean logical corruption (missing data, unenforced constraints etc, then the problem lies with the application.

--
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
Audit Commission UK

Received on Thu Mar 06 2003 - 06:48:18 CST