January 15, 2009 at 6:05 am
Having only ever done MS SQL I don’t know a great deal about Oracle.
There are a few Oracle DBAs where I work and I'm sick of them telling me its better.
I Wanted to ask you guys which in your personal opinion is a batter database?
Based on performance, usability, reliability, support based on same hardware spec.
versions - Oracle 11g or sql 2k5
thanks in advance..
January 15, 2009 at 6:36 am
You know, I don't think it really matters. Each has strengths and each has weaknesses. By and large, I prefer SQL Server and that's where I make my money, but I can acknowledge some of the things that Oracle does well. The market is big enough for both.
"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood"
- Theodore Roosevelt
Author of:
SQL Server Execution Plans
SQL Server Query Performance Tuning
January 15, 2009 at 6:40 am
It's all going to be opinion, but I use both - a lot, so I will give you my opinion.
They both have strengths. Oracle is really developer-friendly. It is designed to loop through records. This makes the typical application developer way of thinking work pretty well - do something, move to the next record, repeat. MSSQL is designed to be very fast in set-based operations and is pretty bad at the whole looping thing (hence avoiding cursors). Performance-wise, if you compare operations that use each systems strengths, they currently benchmark about the same. MSSQL 2008 inched out Oracle a little, but Oracle will overtake again, I'm sure.
Reliability - they are also pretty much the same now. Although the Oracle/UNIX installs have been traditionally much more reliable, since SQL 2005 and Windows Server 2003, MS has gotten pretty close to the same reliability. I think the biggest problem with most MS shops is less-experienced resources tend to manage the servers. If you have a good UNIX admin and a good MS Server admin, they are both pretty reliable. One of the bigger reliability issues on the MS end is untrained resources tend to manage them because the tools and user-interfaces are so good. You cannot blame the software for people mis-using it. If you have a good server admin and a good dba (as you almost always have with Oracle) MSSQL is very reliable.
Cost - this is really where MSSQL shines. Now, I don't advocate selecting software specifically because it is cheaper, but the total cost of ownership of MSSQL is lower no matter how you slice it. The initial licensing costs are comparable for the database engine and OS licensing. With MSSQL you also get SSIS, SSAS, and SSRS essentially for "free" with the product as well as a tool set (Management Studio). Oracle solutions are available, but certainly not free. The other big cost for Oracle is in resources. For some reason, Oracle DBA's and developers are more expensive. I think this is reflective of shotty tools, but for whatever reason, they add more cost.
Scalability - This is really where Oracle edges out MSSQL right now. Oracle scales up and out pretty well. MSSQL scales up (bigger, faster server) but scaling out (multiple servers load-balancing) is not really there. At this point, single-server scale out (lots of processors and memory in one server) has gotten cheap, so I don't know if this is that big of a deal in most situations.
Now, as far as which is better - that will always depend on the situation. However, if anyone tells you they have a definitive reason why one or the other is "better" they probably don't know what they are talking about or are simply trying to sell you something.
January 15, 2009 at 7:20 am
Also I asked this question... and don't forget that now we have available the SQL Server 2008! ...vs Oracle 11g!
As I search in the Internet both technologies are very nice and strong to handle toooo many data!
one example is for the database with large data such as 300 TB database just for test the Oracle was more successful than SQL Server 2005!
So, on the other hand the Japan database engineers and architects has set up the Clustering with SQL Server 2005 for transfer 2 000 000 (million) data per second ( this is very big performance)!
Little bit abstract info here but these info coming from all the people who works with Oracle and SQL Server!
Definitively, I cannot find the answer yet which is the best!!!
January 15, 2009 at 7:27 am
I think it's pretty much the same question as "which is better, red or blue?"
- 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
January 15, 2009 at 7:32 am
GSquared (1/15/2009)
I think it's pretty much the same question as "which is better, red or blue?"
red, obviously. What's wrong with you?
January 15, 2009 at 7:42 am
Have to agree with Michael on this and appreciate all the points he makes. It has been a few years since I have had to work with Oracle but they certainly both have their merits. The one major caution that I will throw out is that for some reason there is that industry thought, especially in upper management, that Oracle is the only one that can play in the large enterprises and that simply isn't true. Sadly many will buy Oracle and think that they have a solution to their performance issues only to find out that it really is the app that stinks, not the dbms. 😛
As to the scale out, that is something that I am looking forward to improving with the future of SQL Server. Pretty cool presentation at PASS about some of that. Not sure if that is up anywhere for viewing. However, I do believe that there is some misconception here as well. Check out the following links on this;
http://blogs.msdn.com/sqlcat/archive/2008/06/12/sql-server-scale-out.aspx
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/plan/ssmsam.mspx - This is a bit old but it is by the late Jim Gray which means that the information is extremely solid.
David
@SQLTentmaker“He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose” - Jim Elliot
January 15, 2009 at 7:47 am
Michael Earl (1/15/2009)
GSquared (1/15/2009)
I think it's pretty much the same question as "which is better, red or blue?"red, obviously. What's wrong with you?
Purple?
as for Oracle/MSSQL like others have said it's all what you need. Look at the strengths and weaknesses of both products. For me it's easy, I've never once worked with a database where I needed to scale out, so MSSQL has always fit the bill in both initial price and TCO. additionally I make my living from MS Technologies so I am somewhat biased, but I believe the MS tools are FAR superior to the ones from Oracle. Not that there aren't 3rd party tools for each which improve them...
-Luke.
January 15, 2009 at 8:19 am
I disagree with most of the thoughts on this thread... I've used both and, for what I classify as "casual users" and ease of use, I think that SQL Server is head and shoulders above Oracle.
There is no doubt in my mind that it's sometimes a matter of what you cut your teeth on and that Oracle has a lot more functionality, but Oracle has much stricter rules that can be pretty frustrating at times. For example, Oracle cannot return a result set to an app from a simple stored procedure that does a SELECT... you have to write a reference cursor to do that.
And, with all of it's power, Oracle STILL only allows 30 character object names. That requires the creation of a full set of naming conventions for abbreviations or the developers will have an absolute field day making up their own and using it only when they feel like it.
But, like anything else, I suppose "it depends"... there's a very easy way to find out, though... have a race. Describe a complex problem that requires the creation of serveral tables, a user interface (keep that part simple), and several chunks of functionality. Then, let the Oracle ninjas and the SQL Server ninjas in your company have an all out, all night death march race. To give the folks incentive on the race, give them any two or three days off that they choose.
If it's a tie, SQL Server wins not only because of the initial cost, but because of the cost of ownership.
Of course, that's just my opinion... Heh... I can see thise thread turning into a real flame war if we're not careful.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
January 15, 2009 at 8:35 am
We actually did what you describe Jeff, we had a "run off" with Oracle 10G and SQL Server 2005 in a data warehouse conversion test. Both 64-Bit on Itanium (this was a few years ago). Great fun. Go ahead, ask....
Yes, of course SQL Server 2005 won. No, it wasn't that we had gimpy Oracle DBA's either. We had some really good ones (multiples for one production instance too :)).
David
@SQLTentmaker“He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose” - Jim Elliot
January 15, 2009 at 9:50 am
What's "won"? Not sure what that means. Faster, larger, price/performance?
I think they both have their places. I prefer SQL Server since it's cheaper, more complete with features, and fits my needs. Not that Oracle wouldn't, but at 1/2 to 1/4 the cost, why bother?
January 15, 2009 at 9:57 am
Steve Jones - Editor (1/15/2009)
What's "won"? Not sure what that means. Faster, larger, price/performance?
Sorry, good question. Yes, faster, and better price performance especially since we were using partitioning which is included in Enterprise Edition of SS but is quite an expensive add-on with Oracle. The "run off" was primarily focused on which would perform better (faster) on like hardware.
David
@SQLTentmaker“He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose” - Jim Elliot
January 15, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Define best. For me best is Oracle because I've used it for more than 10 years and just a little bit looked in SQL Server. Oracle for me would most probably be faster, more reliable and usable for me because I know how to configure, develop and use various its features. It isn't so with SQL Server so the reason why.
The first thing is to understand that each DBMS is different and what is better for me, won't be better for you and what is better for project X, won't be better for project Y.
It is OK to compare them, but there is one big problem - there are very few people really knowing both of them and really understanding that even if there is not direct mapping for feature X in other DBMS, there are various another ways how to accomplish that.
So ultimate seeking for which is better is useless at least to my mind.
Gints Plivna
http://www.gplivna.eu
January 15, 2009 at 1:50 pm
All good points and to further what Gints is saying, you do have to take into consideration what skills are prevalent in your organization and / or your community. Where I am at there is not an abundance of SQL Server but there is a ton of Oracle so, you can find Oracle DBA's by the dozen.
Thanks for that insight!
David
@SQLTentmaker“He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose” - Jim Elliot
January 15, 2009 at 6:04 pm
gints.plivna (1/15/2009)
Define best.
Not a problem... Which can someone write the highest performance code in that correctly does the job in the shortest time for the least amount of money with the least amount of maintenance? 😉
The first thing is to understand that each DBMS is different and what is better for me, won't be better for you and what is better for project X, won't be better for project Y.
Heh... Agreed... See definition of "Define best" above.
It is OK to compare them, but there is one big problem - there are very few people really knowing both of them...
Now [font="Arial Black"]THAT [/font]would be interesting. Any of you folks out there good at both? If you are, I for one sure would like to hear from you on which you think is best and why. Seriously...
So ultimate seeking for which is better is useless at least to my mind.
I do understand what you mean here... which is best for the PROJECT? See "Define Best" above. 🙂
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 250 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply