May 20, 2002 at 8:17 am
Need to know the advantages or disadvantages of using SQL server as a database compared to Oracle. If anyone can give me 10 points regarding this matter that would be great. Or if you can suggest a website that gives this information, that would be great too.
May 20, 2002 at 9:01 am
http://www.networknewz.com/2001/0709.html
http://www.intranetjournal.com/ix/msg/19607.html
These are the few I can think of right off hand.
The biggest advantage of SQL is it's ability to be setup and maintained. Oracle is quite difficult.
Next Oracle is designed to work best on UNIX and the Hardware cost of those server can get up there where SQL is a Windows product.
Oracles lincensing is a nightmare (but they have been working on this) and also is extremely costly.
SQL does have a better set of default tools to help the DBA such as EM, Oracle runs into more addon needs.
DTS and SQLAgent offer more hands off approachs to dealing with some data exports/imports and maitainence. Oracle is lacking there.
"Don't roll your eyes at me. I will tape them in place." (Teacher on Boston Public)
May 20, 2002 at 9:41 am
I tend to be biased towards SQL Server, but Antares has great points.
Oracle is regarded as a more scalable and mission critical product. It has a better track record, but that is not necessarily indicitive of how it will work in your environment. It needs more tuning and experience from a DBA to get running. While it runs on multiple platforms, it runs differently and to tune it effectively, you will need to tailor your Oracle skills to that platform. The base function is the same, but the interactions with different opreating systems (NT, AIX, Solaris, Linux, etc) is different.
SS is cheaper and easier to setup. Also easier to not do a good job because it is easy. Still need a DBA. Only runs on Windows, has more tools included (DTS, etc.).
Also, add ons for Oracle will tend to be more expensive.
I'd say it's a toss up overall and pick the one that fits your environment and skill sets best. If you've got Oracle training, stick with it. If not, SQL Server might be easier,
Steve Jones
June 13, 2002 at 10:19 am
In addition to the things mentioned by the others. There are a number of technical points that differentiate the two.
Oracle has a more robust indexing architecture (bitmap and function based indexes for example.) I have also found that PL/SQL includes a richer assortment of built in functions than T-SQL. Oracle sports partitioned tables which are somewhat similar in concept to SQL Server's but I find them a bit easier to manage.
SQL Server 2000 is hands-down the winner with respect to ease of administration and working well "out of the box" It also wins the in terms of cost by a long shot.
In terms of performance and scalabiltiy, my experience says it's a toss-up with SQL Server maybe even getting the edge here. SQL Server is the backend for the busiest system in the bank (outside the mainframe). We process over 100 transactions per second and see an average of 900 connections at any point in time with never a hiccup. Our biggest database (over 2TB) is on Oracle but SQL Server handles tables with over 160 million rows with no problem. Performance is determined more by the application(s) that hit the database rather than the database itself.
That being said, I'll tell you that we spend much more time babysitting Oracle than SQL Server. That's why we have 5 Oracle DBA's and only one (me) SQL Server DBA and I'm part-time on Oracle...so really it's 5 1/2 to one, and we actually have more instances of SQL Server than Oracle.
/*****************
If most people are not willing to see the difficulty, this is mainly because, consciously or unconsciously, they assume that it will be they who will settle these questions for the others, and because they are convinced of their own capacity to do this. -Friedrich August von Hayek
*****************/
Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply