Re: Serious article on comparison between MS SQL Server 2005 Yukon and Oracle 10g

Mladen Gogala wrote:

> Yes, there were several revelations in the article: 1) On page 12:
> "ROLLBACK SEGMENTS don't support PCTINCREASE and hence don't "autogrow" so
> you must get the size right when they are created"

Also apparently not noticing that with 9i and more certainly 10g anyone creating a rollback segment isn't paying attention.

> 2) On the same page, just below:
> "MSSQL 2005 Oracle
> READ COMMITTED No Equivalent
> (locking)
> REPEATABLE READ No Equivalent
> SERIALIZABLE No Equivalent"

Perhaps what should have been written was:

   MSSQL 2005        Oracle
   Dirty Read      No Equivalent

> Page 24:
> "
> .NET in MSSQL vs. Java in Oracle

> First, this is an outright lie. One can call Java procedures directly, using
> the CALL command. Second, it remains to be seen whether this .NOT
> stuff will become the greatest source of viruses ever invented.

Worse yet for those that wrote the paper it is likely that .NET won't be around long enough to see much beyond the release of MS SQL 2005. I have friends in Redmond that are already referring to it as .GONE because it has already reached the level of value to M$ of COM, COM+, and dozens of other "technologies".

  Visual
> basic in documents and spreadsheets looked fabulous until some teenager
> found the way of cajoling people into formatting their drives by opening
> an email. God bless .NOT and Winduhs!
>
> Finally, the debate that got my eyebrows raised was the discussion of the
> identity field vs. sequences, claiming sequences to be a "major overhead".
>
> Well, sequences are certain (but by no means a major one) overhead because they
> allow things like clustering (see "ORDERED" and "NOCACHE") as well as good
> caching for performance. The article doesn't say anything about he performance
> of the identity fields in the clustered environment.

Actually identity columns have more of an impact on performance than do sequences which is why IBM immediately added sequences to Informix. The sad fact of identity columns is that they force serialization.

> By all standards this is a substandard article in which some important facts
> are plain wrong and conclusions are shallow at best. Verdict: waste of
> time.

Amen!

-- 
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)