Re: Oracle is a bigger version of MS Access?

"Daniel Morgan" <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:1065109775.938113_at_yasure...

> If all one cares about is rows and columns one can sustain that argument
> for a few minutes. Anytime they
> want to take the most current version of MS Access, load it on the most
> recent version of Windows, and
> duplicate stuff I did back in the early 90's with Oracle 7.3 I'll put up
> hard cash that say's they can't even
> come close. And that was work that didn't involve LOBs, or object data
> types, or anything even remotely
> approaching the capabilities Oracle contains today.
>
> First challenge ... in a company with 180,000 employees put the company
> address book and phone system
> on every desktop available for simultaneous access. Some will access
> using various flavors of Windows and
> other via UNIX workstations. Let employees update their personal
> information, let managers update information
> for those that report to them, and continue the heirarchy to the top of
> the organization while allowing HR access
> to all information and the ability to block access to personal
> information for those employees with personal issues
> or involved in secret projects. Assume you will average 10,000
> simultaneously connected users.

Hmm a dangerous challenge. Change those figures to 180 employees and 10 simultaneous connections. Can Access do this? If it can then the simple comparison Oracle is a bigger Access is valid - for this application. You also run the risk of saying that Oracle is appropriate only for organisations with > say 50,000 users. Perhaps MSSQL would be appropriate for 500-50000 users? Now I wouldn't make this argument, but it is tempting when you start measuring database requirements by simultaneous users or data volume or similar.

-- 
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
Audit Commission UK