Re: Informix, Sybase, Oracle or MS SQL server

At 03:23 PM 4/24/96 GMT, cpc0000_at_ibm.net wrote:
}tlarson_at_ari.net (J.Masino/T.Larson) wrote:
}>Michael Cowden (cowden_at_tc.net) wrote:
 [...]
}>: I'm wondering which one of these servers is the best to go with. Here's
}>: what I found so far.
}>:
}>: Oracle:
}>: Seems to offer alot of what we need, but you must take a
}>: database of line to back it up--this is a problem. Also, I've yet to
}>: speak with a technical person at Oracle--they seem to just try to get by
}>: with their name. Also, They are a little more expensive and I don't
}>: care much for their internet strategy (creating a webserver to compete
}>: with Netscape and others rather than working with webserver developers
}>: as does Sybase). Also, they seem to be more proprietary than Sybase or
}>: Informix.
}>
}>If you read their news group you will find you aren't alone in your
}>response to their tech support. It seems to be a cycle for all vendors.
}>As for their proprietary nature, I have found that is just Oracle's approach.
}>They are a product bundling type of company, which is a good thing for
}>people who like to do one-stop-shopping.
}
}Oracle is a very nice database for large to very large requirements. It scales
}nicely, and has just about all the bells and whistles you'd want. On the flip
}side, tech support isn't all it should be, and some tools are getting a bit
}antiquated. Also, some of the newer windows tools are taking a very long time
}to mature.
}>
}>: Sybase:
}>: Liked dealing with them but it seems that they have some serious
}>: problems--no row-level locking, no two-phase commit. I like their
}>: web.sql product--but it's not out for IRIX yet. Aside from these issues
}>: I am very happy with them, but these are serious issues.
}>
}>There's another thread in here kicking around row level vs page level locking.
}>It pops up periodically. I have not found page level locking to be a problem.
}>It minimizes the work the server has to do which is good for performance.
}>2K is usually just a few rows (usually), and your database design will
}>frequently handle it (carefully choose what you create your clustered indexes
}>on, if you need them, to avoid insert hot spots, bundle transactions (begin
}>and end transaction) so that updates don't hold locks for extended amounts
}>of time -- that kind of thing).
}I've run into places where row level locking was absolutely critical, but yes
}you could do without it quite a bit of the time. For quick update, transaction
}type systems, it works OK, but I've done some compute intensive data
}warehousing operations, and for this it can be troublesome if you hold locks
}for a long time.
}
}>
}>I'm confused about what you say about the two-phased commit. Sybase supports
}>two-phased commit capability through Open Client. Of course, this is
}>client-side calls rather than server-side enforcement. So their
}>implementation may not be optimal for your plans, but it is there if that's
}>your concern.
}>
}>: Informix:
}>: Just getting familiar with their offering. They look good, but
}>: I still need to find out more. They don't appear to have the same
}>: problems that Sybase has. They also do not have anything out for the
}>: web side (except for the CGI kit). LiveWire Pro for Netscape is not yet
}>: available but will offer alot of what we need for the database
}>: integration from the web. I'm interested in finding out more about
}>: these guys. They look like a good alternative.
}>
}>I haven't worked with it. I've read a lot and it sounds like they are doing
}>good things.
}
}I've heard nice things, especially about their superier debugging and
}diagnositic tools. Don't know much about it really.
}
}>
}>: MS SQL Server:
}>: My initial inclination (from dealing with MS in the past) is NO
}>: WAY. Serious issues include--access from Unixware and Irix.
}>: Scalability--with MS it looks like you are stuck with MS the whole way.
}>
}Without opening myself up too far, surfice it to say that the MS product has
}some toubles scaling. I've heard that somewhere around 15M rows it starts to
}break down. That may seem like a lot of rows, but it really isn't. I have
}tables that blow past that number with ease, especially large financial
}transaction and medical lab results tables.
}
}Chris
}
}=====================================================================
}Chris Cebelenski CH: cebelenski_at_a1.tch.harvard.edu
}Applications Specialist Portal: cpc_at_shell.portal.com
}Children's Hospital Home: cpc0000_at_ibm.net
}#include <std_disclaimer.h> Wk Phone:(617) 355-8401
}
}
Received on Wed May 01 1996 - 00:00:00 CEST