Comments embedded
--
Replace part of the email address: kennedy-down_with_spammers_at_attbi.com
with family. Remove the negative part, keep the minus sign. You can figure
it out.
"CSC" <jcheong_at_cooper.com.hk> wrote in message
news:bcfg8m$5lq1_at_imsp212.netvigator.com...
> But from the web site
>
> http://www.talussoftware.com/DBPowerSuite
>
> I can see a lot of problems (Facts 1 and Facts 2) in Oracle compared to
> SQL/Sybase.
>
Wonderful piece of FUD. Love the example where they confuse a tool with a
programming language. (SQLPlus is a tool not a programming language.). Love
where they confuse the differences in vocabulary - Oracle can only have 1
database and sysbase can have 32K - gee, how many schemas can sysbase have 0
so that means it sucks. It goes on and on and on as the most biased piece
of marketing fud I have ever seen. (besides some of the MS stuff) Love how
they never talk about readers blocking writers, but go on and on repeating
the same "issues" over and over in different ways.(1 and 2 are mostly
repeats of each other)
Jim
>
> Morover, SQLServer is faster than Oracle/DB2
>
> http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_perf_results.asp
>
>
>
> Franklin <member29243_at_dbforums.com> wrote:
>
> > From this link:
>
> > http://searchdatabase.techtarget.com/tip/1,289483,sid13_gci834319,00.ht-
> > ml
>
> > In SQL Server, the DBA has no "real" control over sorting and cache
> > memory allocation. The memory allocation is decided only globally in the
> > server properties memory folder, and that applies for ALL memory and not
> > CACHING, SORTING, etc.
>
>
> > In SQL Server, all pages (blocks) are always 8k and all extents are
> > always 8 pages (64k). This means you have no way to specify larger
> > extents to ensure contiguous space for large objects.
>
>
> > In SQL Server, no range partitioning of large tables and indexes. In
> > Oracle, a large 100 GB table can be seamlessly partitioned at the
> > database level into range partitions. For example, an invoice table can
> > be partitioned into monthly partitions. Such partitioned tables and
> > partitioned indexes give performance and maintenance benefits and are
> > transparent to the application.
>
>
> > There is no partitioning in SQL Server.
>
>
> > There are no bitmap indexes in SQL Server.
>
>
> > There are no reverse key indexes in SQL Server.
>
>
> > There are no function-based indexes in SQL Server.
>
>
> > There is no star query optimization in SQL Server.
>
> > --
> > Posted via http://dbforums.com
Received on Sat Jun 14 2003 - 13:43:08 CDT
