Re: SQL Server VS Oracle

I've chosen SQL Server 18 months ago for 2 small sites (25 and 10 users) instead of Oracle.

The main reason was I feared Oracle would neglect its product on NT, wich opened the door to the competion from SQL Server. I think the opposite is true: Oracle attacked MS on its own ground.

We wanted to keep things simple and would not be involved with several suppliers.
I found also the Oracle administration much more difficult.

I am not unhappy with my choice and never had big problems (well, some anoying bugs from time to time). Performance is outstanding on relatively low-cost hardware ( in casu Proliants 1P100 and 2P166 both with 4 disk array ctl's and 96Mb ram). But if I could do alter table and change colums, and if I could have row locking ...

OTH once you've adopted Oracle, the way out seems to be very difficult.

My SQL Code also runs on Sybase SQL Anywhere (the former Watcom, wich is a real desktop and Workgroup database - one of the most underestimated products in the industry - ever tried Personal Oracle ?) and of course on Sybase X and XI.

I have no experience at all how it scales, but I've read a test in Byte september wich showed SQLSRV 6.5 scaled well on 4 processors, wich it seemed not to do before beyond 2.

Jeffrey Bradley <BradleyJJ_at_dot.state.sc.us> wrote in article <01bbb5e1$9bcb94a0$f3c174cc_at_dp_g8pc1>...
> We are trying to make a decision for our coorporate relational data base.
 

> Is there any reason to choose SQL Server over Oracle or vice versa? Are
> there any gotcha's? What is the largest number of users that have been
> able to get to the data base at any one time?
>
> Thanks,
> Jeff
>
> BradleyJJ_at_dot.state.sc.us
>
Received on Wed Oct 09 1996 - 00:00:00 CEST