November 14, 2001 at 10:28 am
In a previous job interview, I recall the hiring manager asking me what I thought of Oracle (I was applying for the SQL Server DBA position).
So I would like to know what is your take on Oracle? As in compares to SQL Server.
Pros and cons of Oracle? Difference(s) between Oracle and SQL Server?
And honestly, overall which RDBMS do you believe is "superior"? SQL Server or Oracle?
November 14, 2001 at 10:42 am
I've never used Oracle, so I'd have a hard time as well. I think overall I feel that SQL Server is a solid product that is probably more than good enough for the majority of small to not quite huge companies. At some point Oracle might make more sense if you're running a super large db, but from what I've seen it scales pretty well (look at TerraServer as a not bad example). I think cost to purchase and maintain makes it a compelling solution. If you look at Access/mySQL/SQLServer/Oracle/TeraData as the hierarchy, I think SQL is a pretty good bang for the buck as the "better" in the old good/better/best equation.
Andy
Andy
November 15, 2001 at 8:10 am
Having worked in both environments (although Oracle was limited to backup DBA type functions) I would say that SQL Server is better for several reasons.
First, the cost to manage SQL Server is significantly less than that of Oracle. Much discussion has been had on this site about the role of the Production DBA fading within the SQL Server community. That is only due to the fact that SQL Server maintains so much easier and allows for other work to be piled on what used to be a production DBA role. This does not happen with Oracle!!!
Second, the cost for server / product per transaction is significantly less and improving in the SQL Server arena. See the TPC benchmarks. I realize that stats can be manipulated but I believe these to be truthful (unbiased source).
Third - in addition to Andy's comments on this, SQL Server will work for most if (and this is a high percentage) of organizations using an RDBMS. Oracle may have a better value in the HIGH end market but, 98% of companies don't have THAT HIGH of a database requirement. I would be interested to see where SQL Server goes in this arena.....
Just my thoughts...
David
David
@SQLTentmaker“He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose” - Jim Elliot
November 16, 2001 at 12:18 pm
I suspect that it is more possible to design a database write code in sql server to utilise the available memory more efficiently (that might just be because I know more aboutr sql server than the Oracle people I have met know about Oracle). I also think that Oracle is more forgiving of bad code/design.
That's why a lot of Oracle people moan about sql server, and sql server people moan about code written by Oracle people.
Probably it is better to go with whichever you have most experience in - although I think you are more likely to get a system to perform in Oracle if you don't have experience in either (that's after you have managed to get anything running at all - easier in sql server).
Cursors never.
DTS - only when needed and never to control.
November 18, 2001 at 8:20 pm
I find T-sql much easier and versitile than pl/sql. SqlServer is quick and easy. We develop in sqlserver and run our production in Oracle. The best of both worlds I think.
November 18, 2001 at 10:28 pm
thats really great to read thru all those people think about the never ending RDBMS war.I have something to add on ..
SQL server is exclusively for Windows platform.so it inherently takes advantage of all the capabilities of that environment,but thats not the case with Oracle.
so people who have a production environment based on Windows servers SQL SERVER is the best bet..
...and its obvious for linux its Oracle
..am i right guys???
thanks
November 19, 2001 at 1:11 am
I work in a very large company that have both Oracle & Sql Server. The only differences are political and the standard of development! These two arguements never come down to ease of administration and cost.
Yep, Im pro Sql Server
November 19, 2001 at 5:11 am
I find the cost of Oracle vs. SqlServer to be comparable. I've been through my DB licensing wars with both companies, so I'm not sure how much salt I would put into the cost per transaction analysis.
Other things I have noted:
Sql DBAs cost less 🙂 I'm mainly restricting myself to production level DBAs, though I recognize that the development/production area is blending.
Development tools are cheaper: not something to ignore if you go to a startup. However, many tools for Oracle are FREE, so I'm not too sure if my point is valid.
I'll tell you my biggest #1 concern about SqlServer - Microsoft's security. Yes, I know I can lock everything down, but there is no way I would ever spec IIS into a solution again. It left me with a bad taste in my mouth, large chunks of rear-end missing, and a strong desire to return to Unix. I just wonder how hackable or open Sql Server is?
my 2 cents.
November 19, 2001 at 5:31 am
I have quite a bit of experience with both Oracle and SQL Server.
IMHO, I don't think there is any doubt that Oracle has a more powerful, more scalable and more tunable database engine (SS is catching up,though). But just because it's more powerful at the very top end doesn't mean it's a better choice.
If you use a car analogy, most people think a Mercedes Benz is a "better" car than a Honda, but for most people a Honda (or Toyota or Chevy, etc.) is "better choice" than the Mercedes. The Honda provides everything they need in a car and the cost of owning the Honda is less, it's easier to get repaired, etc.
The same is true for SQL Server. For probably 90-95% of users, SQL Server provides all the functionality they require (plus some) with way lower procurement and maintenance costs than Oracle. It's very easy to set up a "lights out", hands-off SQL Server system, but IMO much more difficult to do with Oracle.
Al
November 19, 2001 at 10:26 am
Interesting debate. Haven't ever admin'd Oracle, though I did develop against v7.
Personally, it has almost always come down to cost for my companies. Oracle has been substantially more expensive. The gap is closing and may have, but I haven't priced recently.
They are both great databases. Since most problems are app level problems, IMHO, I doubt there is substantially much difference to the power of a solution on either platform. The car analogy above is great. Most of us do not need the higher end features.
I think there is nothing wrong with Oracle, it is cross platform, has lots of tools and is the more mature platform. SS is also great, but only a Windows based solution. If my boss wanted to toss SQL Server tomorrow nad purchase Oracle, I'd learn Oracle and go on my way. I love SQL Server, but in almost every case, either solution will work.
Steve Jones
November 19, 2001 at 5:29 pm
We are a large IT shop with both SQL and Oracle. Back in 1998, Oracle came and visited. The CIO was in the room. The Oracle sales person asked what are standards where. The CIO said something like our business systems are Oracle and we have some small stuff that is SQL. I piped up and said that we had 500+ databases and 60+ servers running SQL Server.
Sales cycles for large companies run over a multi-year period. Back when it could have made a difference Oracle was much more expensive (as regards the present).
Things change, so it is hard to tell the future. We have a lot of small applications and they most likely will stay in SQL. The mid range apps are the battle ground. And SQL is gaining in the mid range in our environment.
I hope Oracle continues to do well. Competition has its merits.
November 19, 2001 at 6:42 pm
It probably comes down to
'Can my system be implemented on the platform'.
The answer is almost certainly yes on both SQL Server and Oracle.
It will work better if it is designed/architected properly.
It will probably fail if the people involved don't know what they are doing.
I get a lot of Oracle people saying 'Oracle could have coped with this easily' when they obviously don't know about relational databases. I suspect what they mean is - the person I worked with on Oracle could have coded this properly.
I spent a half day in a company which was migrating from sql server to oracle because their system kept crashing. This was a system which ran complex updates on 20 million ish recs in a single query (several hours) at the same time as users were updating on-line and also running reports. They didn't seem to think there might be a problem with doing this.
Cursors never.
DTS - only when needed and never to control.
November 22, 2001 at 5:17 am
>> getting ORACLE into organization means hiring DBA (or 2) and UNIX Admin...and pay them through the nose (well, it used to be this way 🙂
>> MS SQL Server is really easy to get up and running with minimal effort and experience
As you hint this is to the detriment of sql server as users with no relational database experience think they can build a system - they can but usually it is a disaster and sql server gets blamed for it.
How many times have you been to a company and no one knows why the server/database is configured the way it is.
Cursors never.
DTS - only when needed and never to control.
December 3, 2001 at 4:44 am
Purely from a development point of view, and having worked extensively with stored procedures in both environments, PL\SQL is the more powerful programming language if only because it has much better error handling the T-SQL.
December 3, 2001 at 10:12 am
Not being too familiar with PL/SQL, can you give an example? I've heard it is a more powerful languange, but not any specifics.
Steve Jones
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 96 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply