Companies that use SQL Server !
-
Hi all ,
Please suggest me what's plus points of SQL Server compared to ORACLE,whats the scope of DBA (SQL server) in companies means pay scale etc...
Thank you in advance
-
For many small and medium companies, price is a big factor in MS SQL Server's favor over Oracle. While being less expensive, it also includes SSIS, SSAS and SSRS along with the database engine.
Regarding salaries, there are many variables that go into this (e.g. country & region where you work, industry you work in, years of experience, ...). You should search for salary surveys to get an idea of salary ranges; but don't take everything you see out there as gospel.
-
Indeed the price of SQL Server makes it very attractive when compare to Oracle. To me the nicest thing about SQL Server is the community. You will find tons of free trainings and people ready to help you (like in this forum).
-
With me it has been the integration services, being able to import and export to many different formats, easily, makes it a must for small business with legacy systems.
Also, the cost, I can download and install Express and decide if SQL Server it the best for the companies I serve, I can also buy the Developer Edition and run SQL Server in a test environment like the big kids.:-)
-
Price is one of the biggest items in the PRO category for SQL Server, I can't think of any configuration where Oracle is cheaper.
Also, my experience is that Oracle DBAs tend to be a bit pricier than SQL Server DBAs. I have only my speculation as to why, but I think it is tied to the fact that there are fewer of them. Not that you have to be a better DBA. YMMV.
SQL Server is usually an easier package to install and get started with. This is one of the reasons for its major market penetration.
BUT it only runs on windows.
I was in a meeting where we were having performance problems with SQL and the topic of switching to Oracle came up. Luckily I had heard this might happen so I came prepared. I hammered them with the facts, undersized hardware, very little memory, and their primary stored procedures need some serious TLC. So what happened? I got double the memory and we rewrote the most heavily used sprocs. This resolved most of the issues, the added memory did wonders as it often will in SQL. Did we need Oracle to fix it? Nope..
With all that said there are probably some cases where oracle may perform better, but in a value proposition Oracle will never win. If you have an app that only runs on Oracle you might not have a choice, but I have seen such a requirement used to prevent a purchase.
CEWII
-
Great points Elliott
-
Thanks.
CEWII
-
The fact it only runs on Windows is one of the biggest concerns to get SQL Server into a production environment:
The production area usually is flooded with *IX OS together with a strong dislike of Windows (and the Patch Tuesday adds another argument almost every month due to the patch quality and the lack of information how various patches interact or depend on each other).
There are many arguments pro SQL Server (the major points were already mentioned, I'd just add that SQL Server semms to be a lot easier to maintain and to administer) but I haven't found a solid argument against the Windows-only concerns yet.
-
I often overcome the windows problem with the sheer cost savings, but it usually hasn't been a problem in my environments.
In environments where very few windows servers this might be more of a battle, not wanting to touch off a war but those who take the "anybody but MS" line are short sighted and are not doing their employers any favors. What I'm saying is that there is a right tool for every job, and there are honest rational reasons to go one path or the other, but basing those reasons on a dislike of MS or windows isn't rational. I have long taken the position that poeple should have experiences in other technologies, whether it be other operating systems or other development languages. It gives you a much better view of what the right path is and a more rational argument.
CEWII
-
I'm not sure if it's a "short sighted" position:
I'll have to deal with arguments like the number of viruses available to attack the systems and the risk/additional effort involved with it including the frequent patch process that once in a while include a patch that does more harm than it helps.
From my point of view it's a weird situation: as per my knowledge SQL Server is more stable and reliable than Oracle (e.g. look at Oracle bug # 8447623 "Wrong Results with OUTER joins and tables with Check Constraints": it will simply return wrong results due to a previous bad patch and you won't even notice to name just one; the Oracle patch lists are much longer and even more scary...) whereas MS and the *IX OS are just the other way around...
Until there's a stable SQL Server version for non-MS (which is unlikely to happen, I guess), it seems like you'll always end up with one unstable part of the system. :Whistling:
-
Or, to rephrase my previous post and put it a litlle more toward your original question:
have a look at the SQL Server related patches and what the fixes are about and compare it with the bug fixes for Oracle (in terms of number, quality and wether the bug was obvious or hidden).
You might come to the conclusion that SQL Server seems to be the more stable/reliable product.
Unfortunately, I have not found any web source that compares the two products with a focus as described above.
-
LutzM (7/21/2011)
I'm not sure if it's a "short sighted" position:I'll have to deal with arguments like the number of viruses available to attack the systems and the risk/additional effort involved with it including the frequent patch process that once in a while include a patch that does more harm than it helps.
I believe people tend to fall into what I call the hammer and nail principle, when all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail. The hammer in this case is knowledge of linux and usually much less about windows, or knowledge of T-SQL and almost nothing of something like C# or VB.NET. When you only have one tool you try to solve ALL problems with it.
Short sighted was the most pleasant way I could say what I was thinking and not the first thing I typed.
Linux itself is usually fairly stable, add other stuff to it and the stability starts to slide, just like windows. Maybe not to the same degree but it happens. Upfront costs of systems using Oracle are going to be more costly as well as long term costs such as a DBA. There are some things Oracle does a REALLY good job with, their clustering methodology is pretty cool. But in very few cases am I willing to pay for it.
The popularity of the OS is going to define the effort put forth in viruses and exploits. Windows is VERY popular so it has a lot of people taking shots at it. But it also has a lot of really good people to work on it.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to trash *nix or *nix systems, but a mindset of ONLY *nix systems or the "I hate MS" people. There are arguments for and against each. And those who would not even consider an MS system are not doing their employers justice.
I'll give an example of my overall point. I have been doing development since the early 80's and database development/admin since the early-mid 90's and is my primary focus now. I have a wide range of experience from development to administration of database, systems, and networks from small companies you'll never hear of to some you probably do business with. About 5 years ago I had a case where there was a process that when evaluated I found it could have easily been written either in T-SQL or in another non-SQL language in about the same time/money/etc. I was able to make that evalutation because of my non-SQL experience, and instead of getting all SQL snobby, the decision came down "who do I have available to do this?" All of my SQL resources were busy and were going to be for a while on higher priority projects, but I had a .Net dev who was just about to finish up a project and was available. He ended up doing the development and it turned out just fine. Right tool for the job and getting all hung up on one tech would have been detrimental. Thats where I am going with all that.
CEWII
-
I don't think we really disagree here, Elliott.
However, I would not compare a decision between SQL and .NET with a decision between Oracle and SQL Server.
To summarize it: "It depends." 😀
If there's a group of OS admins with *IX experience and an Oracle DBA already available, it will be tough to get MS and SQL Server into the business and vice versa.
But if you start from scratch there's a good chance that MS and SQL Server might be in favor because of cost and staff available.
-
If there's a group of OS admins with *IX experience and an Oracle DBA already available, it will be tough to get MS and SQL Server into the business and vice versa.
But if you start from scratch there's a good chance that MS and SQL Server might be in favor because of cost and staff available.
You will be surprise with the amount of companies that are moving to SQL Server after being Oracle only shops. When it comes to costs SQL will very often make a very good business case.
-
LutzM (7/22/2011)
I don't think we really disagree here, Elliott.However, I would not compare a decision between SQL and .NET with a decision between Oracle and SQL Server.
To summarize it: "It depends." 😀
If there's a group of OS admins with *IX experience and an Oracle DBA already available, it will be tough to get MS and SQL Server into the business and vice versa.
But if you start from scratch there's a good chance that MS and SQL Server might be in favor because of cost and staff available.
I agree, not quite an apples-to-apples comparison, but indicative of not getting locked into a particular tool or technology because thats all you know.
It absolutely depends, and I agree that if all you have in house is *nix and Oracle then it will be harder.
Every environment is different, and different people and personalities.
CEWII
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 16 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply