MS SQL Server 2000 vs Oracle
-
Someone can tell me which features from Oracle are better that MS SQL Server 2000? I don't know about Oracle system and I would like compare some opinions.
Thanks
-
For a start check out this thread:
[font="Verdana"]Markus Bohse[/font]
-
Dont get anyone started on this 🙂
See my link below...
Chris Kempster
Author of "SQL Server 2k for the Oracle DBA"
Chris Kempster
www.chriskempster.com
Author of "SQL Server Backup, Recovery & Troubleshooting"
Author of "SQL Server 2k for the Oracle DBA" -
See whether the link http://www.sqlservercentral.com/columnists/dPriyankara/comparisonofbusinessintelligencestrategiesbetweens.asp is helpful.
MCP MCSE MCSD MCDBA
-
Ok I guess all the links are covered. So here is my $.02.
Oracle features I wish SQL Server had
-- Function based indexes
-- Read locking model
-- Java stored procedures
Let the debate begin
-
As an Oracle GURU I am somewhat biased but here goes my take. I like the admin shell to MS SQL. Oracle could take some lessons there. The MS SQL database has many of the same functional properties that Oracle has with the exception of embedded 'Objects' and java stored procedures. Oracle is portable across many platforms while MS SQL is not (yet). The stored procedures are almost equal in impelemtation and in execution. I like some of the non-standard things that MS SQL can do that oracle cannot. This is very much true in result set handling between client and server and web apps and server as well. Oracle 9i provides much more flexibility in the design of the engine so that logical spaces (tablespaces)can be customized by block size and type. I belive that Oracle will scale into terabyte database sizes better than MS SQL at this time. In all the major advantage that Oracle has now is in scalability and object integeration. I belive that MS SQL is a very good relational database product that will continue to get better. The one thing the MS SQL needs to do now is to encompass 'java' development better and tighter. Since this appears to be a hot political issue I'm don't expect to see significant changes right away.
-
Not much of an Oracle guy, seems cumbersome and complex (unnecessarily). That being said, it's a more mature product and I'd guess it will scale better than SQL Server. However, 99% of people that use databases don't need the scalability. Some do, most don't. My experience is that SQL is a much simpler and smoother product to administer and work with. You can screw it up and you need some knowledge, but it is better and cheaper.
On the flip side, it has a bunch of nice features that make it better, IMHO, than MySQL.
Steve Jones
-
quote:
I belive that Oracle will scale into terabyte database sizes better than MS SQL at this time.Anyone out there administrating such a db?
Cheers,
Frank
--
Frank Kalis
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Webmaster: http://www.insidesql.org/blogs
My blog: http://www.insidesql.org/blogs/frankkalis/[/url] -
Hi
The biggest ive seen to date hosted in oracle is a 450Gb beast. The size is one thing, but really high throughput db's and massive numbers of users is another. Ive seen a case sometime back for a smart card system that needed to process 10000 requests per sec during peak times from realtime data. Really comes down to system design and architecture as the key to success and overall scalability and extensability of your apps, no matter the "modern" underlying technoligies used.
I will probably rethink what I just said later today
Cheers
Ck
Chris Kempster
Author of "SQL Server 2k for the Oracle DBA"
Chris Kempster
www.chriskempster.com
Author of "SQL Server Backup, Recovery & Troubleshooting"
Author of "SQL Server 2k for the Oracle DBA" -
For 450G data with 10000 requests per sec, do you mean both SQL Server and Oracle are capable? I am very doubt how SQL Server can be designed for the real life application achieving such performance.
As for cluster technology, Oracle is doing active-active clustering with parallel query execution. Whereas, SQL Server can only do active-inactive clustering which means adding more machines improve availability in a cluster but not performance. Microsoft does argues on this point saying their way of partitioning can achieve the same way as Oracle. But others also critisize on the big application design limitation in doing that partition in SQL Server.
Any comments on it?
Thanks,
Franky
-
Hi Frank
I have to agree with you that the sql server partitioning scheme to enhance performance is a far from optimal model. I generally have a big problem with the idea of splitting my database over many servers and using some strange and convoluted linked server scheme with differing constraints etc etc... let alone the custom views etc. The solution is not a complete database solution, are you going to federate all tables? I think not, and if you do think it, then you have one hell of a recovery senario issue. The oracle cluster technology is amazing stuff but applicable for very few sites, its a trade off perhaps in some cases.
Cheers
Ck
Chris Kempster
Author of "SQL Server 2k for the Oracle DBA"
Chris Kempster
www.chriskempster.com
Author of "SQL Server Backup, Recovery & Troubleshooting"
Author of "SQL Server 2k for the Oracle DBA" -
Scalability is related to the 64-bit processors that the UNIX boxes that host Oracle have. Given similare hardware, 64 bit itanium processors , sql will scale. London Stock Exchange uses this on Windows 2003/ 64 bit S2K. They deliver quotes to 100,000 terminals. No joke. As far as terabyte scalability chech out the information resources datawarehouse. It has 122 terabytes.I agree that there are not that many large SQL sites out there, but that will change once itanium becomes mainstream
-
forgot to mention that the 122 Tb was on Analysis Services
Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply