Re: Oracle versus MS Sqlserver 2000: Technical Comparison of the Features in the two databases

From: Howard J. Rogers <howardjr2000_at_yahoo.com.au>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 04:09:12 +1100
Message-ID: <pan.2003.03.10.17.09.11.501515@yahoo.com.au>

On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:49:46 +0000, Telemachus wrote:

>
> "Howard J. Rogers" <howardjr2000_at_yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:pan.2003.03.10.08.59.37.277967_at_yahoo.com.au...

>>
>> Can I ask what the point of this bit of anti-MS bashing is? The audience
>> in this group presumably has already bought into the Oracle model, so it
>> seems to be rather a waste of time.
>>
>> As it happens, if you are a Windows shop, I think you would seriously want
>> to question any proposal to install anything other than SQL Server. The
>> Windows architecture plays merry havoc with Oracle performance, but suits
>> SQl Server rather nicely.

>
>
> Howard, I use Win2K w/9202 for lots of small data marts and it blasts
> along - no OLTP and mostly read-only stuff - but the performance throats are
> where I want them - in the disk or in the cpu doing hash joins...
>
> Please no flame war on this - all I'm saying is with my config I've no
> complaints

No, fair enough. I didn't mean to suggest that Oracle was a dog on Windows, necessarily. All I can tell you is that having just replaced Windows XP and 2000 with RH Linux, the same sized Oracle databases on the same sized hardware are running a good 75% faster than before. IE, I've almost doubled performance simply by replacing the O/S.

I've done no investigating as to why this might be (nor anything to pin down the degree of improvement in strictly quantifiable terms). But my feeling is that Windows' memory management does things to my Oracle service that I can't control, whereas Linux doesn't.

'Course, Linux doesn't do quite a lot of other things, either... like run CivIII, or play my WMAs, but I'm only a newbie!

Regards
HJR Received on Mon Mar 10 2003 - 11:09:12 CST