February 9, 2009 at 8:52 am
SQL Server = Oracle = DB2
Maybe not ==, but each has things the other doesn't and for 99% of us out there, any of them will do. It's a little silly to argue the 1% issue where you have an extreme system. You could probably use any of them, but by the point you're an extreme case, you're likely committed to one anyway.
Access isn't the same as SQL Server, and I don't like it, but mostly because it encourages very bad design and habits from users that don't know better. And then they cause other issues in an organization because the need is there for an application. Not sure how to solve it, but I like Access moving to a SQL engine.
Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/way0utwest
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
My Blog: www.voiceofthedba.com
February 9, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Bruce W Cassidy (2/8/2009)
I'm very firmly in the love/hate space when it comes to Microsoft Access. In the hands of an expert with some good design, it can do wonderful things. Unfortunately, it's so powerful that it can be made to do "wonderful things" in the hands of an idiot. And that's where the nightmares begin.
Access was fantastic for small businesses, it was also even used in some departments in multi-nationals I've frequented (sometimes linking to sql views linked to mainframe datasources - go figure). Times have moved on though and therefore I think it is appropriate we bow our heads in a respectful minutes silence: Access RIP (and for Petes sake please release those locks and memory - and yes Dave, I know it was you that didn't close and set the rs to nothing).
Max
February 9, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Oracle is by far the most powerful and flexible of the two.
In Oracle RAC the distributed cache memory is shared between the cluster nodes and this offers failover and load balancing capabilities way above SQL server
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ya can't make an omelette without breaking just a few eggs" 😉
February 9, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Each has its place, neither is actually better than the other for most applications. You get into the niche areas, that no longer becomes the true. There may actually be areas where both are the worst choice.
I am SQL Server trained, having learned it from the start. If I have an opportunity to extend my career and it happens that I then have go to the Dark Side and learn Oracle, then I will do so. Having said that, I would still continue keeping my skills up on SQL Server. Hey, for $50.00, it is well worth buying the Developers Edition. I think Microsoft dropping the cost of the Developers Edition several years ago was one of the best moves they made. It put a powerful database system in the hands of those that would most easily benefit from it.
February 9, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Perry Whittle (2/9/2009)
Oracle is by far the most powerful and flexible of the two.In Oracle RAC the distributed cache memory is shared between the cluster nodes and this offers failover and load balancing capabilities way above SQL server
[font="Verdana"]I love statements like this! Largely because they are so emphatic, and yet the reality behind them is so contextual.
I'm a fan or Oracle RAC technology, but I'm also a fan of SQL Server. The raw performance capability of the platforms (which is what I suspect you mean by "power") is certainly one way to compare the two. For a real comparison here, I rely on my old friend... the TPC (Transaction Processing Council). The TPC measurements have gone through quite a few evolutions now, and they now have two measurements based on whether you are talking OLTP or a data warehouse scenario. But they are a reasonably un-biased viewpoint on what the actual performance relationship is between different systems.
So let's take a look.
For the OLTP measurement (TPC-C):
The top 10 results for performance are dominated by DB2 (6 of the 10, including the top 2) and then Oracle.
For price/performance, Oracle has 4 of the 10 (including the top 3), Microsoft SQL Server has 5, and Sybase SQL Anywhere has the remaining 1.
So from this measurement, Oracle is looking pretty good. It's giving enough performance to rate on the absolute performance charts, and still leading the price/performance. Oddly, it's in the TPC/C measurements that I would expect SQL Server to shine.
For the DW measurement (TPC-H):
Here, in raw performance, Microsoft is beating out Oracle, until you get to 1,000 gb (1tb). Then Oracle comes to the fore, although Microsoft is still showing well. At the 30tb size, Oracle is the only benchmark. There are some oddities showing up here, including MySQL, EXASOL EXASolution, ParAccel Analytic Database and Sybase IQ.
In price/performance, Microsoft is well ahead of Oracle until (again) we hit the 30tb level.
So based on my old friend the TPC, Oracle is certainly showing up well in terms of performance. To say "by far" is a little bit of a stretch. I have no idea how to judge "flexibility". Any ideas?
[/font]
February 9, 2009 at 4:35 pm
hey dont get me wrong i like SQL server and as you say price\performance you cant beat it. By flexibilty i am referring to the scalability of the Oracle cluster, i just think its a great technology (nothing wrong with that). Like you pointed out its the larger systems where Oracle is out front
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ya can't make an omelette without breaking just a few eggs" 😉
February 10, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Oh yes... I agree.. Oracle has far superior capabilities over SQLServer when it comes High-Availability, Clustering, and providing the best for Business Continuity.
February 10, 2009 at 1:03 pm
(and providing the best for Business Continuity)
Business continuity words with dubious meaning because the Oracle sales man calls many times in one day.
:Whistling:
Kind regards,
Gift Peddie
February 10, 2009 at 1:26 pm
[font="Verdana"]Oh, we are back to the unsubstantiated claims. 😀
One thing to bear in mind: Oracle is far more complex to set-up and administer from my personal experience than is SQL Server. Also, the tool set that comes with the Oracle RDBMS isn't anywhere near as good as that supplied with SQL Server (again, from my personal experience.) So all of that additional capability comes at a cost: to the administrators and to the users.
I've been involved in setting up several Oracle RAC solutions. I've been involved in setting up several Oracle high availability solutions (including one that was built on Oracle standard and for which we had to write a custom log-shipping solution.)
I've also done the same with SQL Server. In my experience, Oracle is more capable but SQL Server is easier to get up and running. And most organisations do not actually need the additional capability and complexity of Oracle.
So if you need the additional features of Oracle high availability (such as RAC), that's a good reason to choose it. No argument. But if you don't need those additional features, you might be better considering proviging high availability for SQL Server through solutions such as virtualisation. Far easier to maintain and administer!
[/font]
February 10, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Bruce W Cassidy (2/10/2009)
[font="Verdana"]One thing to bear in mind: Oracle is far more complex to set-up and administer from my personal experience than is SQL Server.
no one could argue that, SQL server is much easier to get up and running
Bruce W Cassidy (2/10/2009)
[font="Verdana"]Also, the tool set that comes with the Oracle RDBMS isn't anywhere near as good as that supplied with SQL Server (again, from my personal experience.)
one feature i found useful in a local Oracle 9i database server i setup was the schema compare utility, something SQL server doesnt provide
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ya can't make an omelette without breaking just a few eggs" 😉
February 10, 2009 at 1:48 pm
[font="Verdana"]True. I've used SQL Compare, or the schema compare as part of Visual Studio for Data Professionals. And it's not too hard to write a script to do it in the absense of those. So you can do it, but there's no handy dandy tool shipped with SQL Server for that.[/font]
February 10, 2009 at 2:01 pm
The cost of SQL Compare can be rolled into the savings of SQL Server vs Oracle. Very, very easily rolled into that.
Edit: Just checked pricing on Standard Edition for both. Oracle = $17,500 US, SQL Server 2008 = $5,999 US, for per-CPU license. Oracle price from http://www.oracle.com, SQL Server price from http://www.microsoft.com.
SQL Compare is $395. Yeah. I'll take $6,394 over $17,500, if the difference is that one comes with schema compare tools built in and the other is two separate products. Actually, Oracle Standard had better have some serious advantages over SQL Server to justify that price difference. MUCH more than has been gone over in this thread.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
February 10, 2009 at 2:07 pm
[font="Verdana"]... especially if you factor in the cost of TOAD, which most Oracle shops seem to purchase. shudder[/font]
February 10, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Bruce W Cassidy (2/10/2009)
[font="Verdana"]... especially if you factor in the cost of TOAD, which most Oracle shops seem to purchase. shudder[/font]
Hmm never could understand the problem with these tools :O
When people would understand that Toad, PL/SQL Developer, SQL Navigator and probably some more are all tools created by independent comapnies and not Oracle?
SQL Developer is the tool that is produced by Oracle and it is free, so this is the only tool I could understand at least a bit, if one is whining about.
Gints Plivna
http://www.gplivna.eu
February 10, 2009 at 2:24 pm
I have used most and Oracle's SQL developer is not as good as SQL Server Express management studio.
Kind regards,
Gift Peddie
Viewing 15 posts - 151 through 165 (of 250 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply