Re: What's wrong with SQL Server?

I Totaly agree with Jane and believe this is the most important : The way Oracle manages concurrency is just amazingly better than on MS . (Once you know that I can't even understand how some people can claim that MS is faster....just need a lock on a table and your query will wait ..forever!.. is this fast ?).

2 nd extremly important point :If you are running SQL Server, how do you migrate your DB once you decide to change your server's OS to something else than MS?... you don't : you're F***k!

"Jane O" <janeohin_at_aol.com> a écrit dans le message news: bcd5mc$4kr$2_at_reader1.panix.com...
> you missed one big thing:
>
> WRITERS BLOCK READERS
>
>
> Franklin wrote in message <2998139.1055493889_at_dbforums.com>...
> >
> >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 - 15:58:39 CDT