February 11, 2009 at 6:36 am
I Started of with Oracle then DB2 and then moved to Poet and then moved to MS SQL. It was quite a change. When I started of with oracle, to install Oracle was a pain. It was all tape drive with Unix (Sco or Sun Solaris) as the OS. You had to Mount the tape, do a tar command ect. It was a pain. But the DB was stable.
One thing I have seen is that Unix (Linux or Sco or what ever) has a better File system. This made Oracle much faster when the DB is very very large. Windows still has to catch with that (In my Humble opinion) I still think that Oracle is much faster when you are having a very very large DB.
Another thing I have noticed is that, MS SQL Server is still trying to catch up with Oracle. For example, when was Indexed view released in SQL Server. Oracle had it way way before than MS SQL released.
About GUI, I agree with Steve. To be honest, when ever I am setting things up in Production, I run Scripts rather than use GUI.
-Roy
February 11, 2009 at 6:55 am
Steve Jones - Editor (2/10/2009)
A very good DBA can get by with SQLCMD (or isql/osql), but why should they? I loved QA, which required command line work, but it also gave me many features like easily browsing table or column names while writing SQL. However there are times, one-off items or quick checks that can be done well with Enterprise Manager.Needed? No
Helpful? Extremely. And it makes you more productive.
I haven't used the Oracle tools in some time, but a decade ago they sucked. They could do the job, but they required way more effort on the part of the DBA, and wasted his/her time.
Yes, there it is possible to do the whole DBA job from the command line. It can be done. My whole point in my last few posts is the difference between "can" and "should". It should also be noted that anyone clever and dedicated enough should be able to do the whole thing by opening a text editor, typing in 1s and 0s and saving the file with a .dll or .exe extension. Again, "can" vs "should".
Microsoft's main advantage in the whole software world is that they have consistently provided people with easy ways to build software using their tools on their platforms. QA and SSMS are good examples of this.
And I will maintain that any company that tells it's employees they can't use free tools that will make them more productive, out of some obscure sense of security or whatever, is liable to have too many other such policies to be worth working for.
- 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
February 11, 2009 at 6:58 am
I think you're right GSquared, not allowing the tools that come with the product is a little silly.
February 11, 2009 at 7:12 am
The tools that come with a product should be allowed to be used. But third party tools like a query builder for a DBA, I am not so much for it. I have seen quite a few DBA use TOAD just because it is easier to create queries with it. Those kind of tools I am not comfortable with it.
Again it is just my opinion.
-Roy
February 12, 2009 at 7:01 am
Roy Ernest (2/11/2009)
The tools that come with a product should be allowed to be used. But third party tools like a query builder for a DBA, I am not so much for it. I have seen quite a few DBA use TOAD just because it is easier to create queries with it. Those kind of tools I am not comfortable with it.Again it is just my opinion.
Unless the tool creates an actual security issue, or in some other way harms productivity, or is expensive enough to have a negative ROI, I don't have a problem with it being used. I haven't used TOAD, though I've heard all kinds of negative comments about it, so I really can't comment on that one.
- 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
February 12, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Roy Ernest (2/11/2009)
One thing I have seen is that Unix (Linux or Sco or what ever) has a better File system. This made Oracle much faster when the DB is very very large.
[font="Verdana"]Actually, most of my Oracle experience was with creating raw Oracle partitions to get around the fact that files on Unix filesystems sucked.[/font]
Roy Ernest (2/11/2009)
Windows still has to catch with that (In my Humble opinion) I still think that Oracle is much faster when you are having a very very large DB.
[font="Verdana"]TPC does confirm that Oracle is somewhat faster for very large databases. The difference is miminal, unless you are talking over 100tb.[/font]
Roy Ernest (2/11/2009)
Another thing I have noticed is that, MS SQL Server is still trying to catch up with Oracle. For example, when was Indexed view released in SQL Server. Oracle had it way way before than MS SQL released.
[font="Verdana"]Indexed views have been there since SQL Server 2000. Materialised views (Oracle) some time longer. Examples exist the other way: for example "indexed organised tables" in Oracle copying the clustered index in SQL Server. And Oracle has been playing serious catch up with SQL Server in terms of toolsets, ease of installation, administration, etc. When SQL Server 6.5 was released, it was the best thing that ever happened to Oracle! Suddenly Oracle realised that providing command line tools was no longer enough.[/font]
February 12, 2009 at 2:35 pm
GSquared (2/12/2009)
Unless the tool creates an actual security issue, or in some other way harms productivity, or is expensive enough to have a negative ROI, I don't have a problem with it being used.
[font="Verdana"]My feelings exactly. Unless there is an issue, tools that improve productivity are all to the good.[/font]
GSquared (2/12/2009)
I haven't used TOAD, though I've heard all kinds of negative comments about it, so I really can't comment on that one.
[font="Verdana"]Confession time: my issue with TOAD is that I got used to the Microsoft tools, and TOAD does things its own way. Those who use TOAD exclusively (and never have to use tools like MS Office, or SQL Server, or Visual Studio, etc) swear by it. Those of us more used to the Microsoft toolset swear at it. So it's not really the functionality that is an issue with TOAD, more just what I find to be "clunkiness".[/font]
February 13, 2009 at 6:11 am
Bruce W Cassidy (2/12/2009)
Roy Ernest (2/11/2009)
One thing I have seen is that Unix (Linux or Sco or what ever) has a better File system. This made Oracle much faster when the DB is very very large.[font="Verdana"]Actually, most of my Oracle experience was with creating raw Oracle partitions to get around the fact that files on Unix filesystems sucked.[/font]
That I find it difficult to accept. It is accepted universally that Unix file system is far better than Windows File system. That is why everyone considers Unix to be much more faster than Windows or any other OS.
-Roy
February 14, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Roy Ernest (2/13/2009)
Bruce W Cassidy (2/12/2009)
Roy Ernest (2/11/2009)
One thing I have seen is that Unix (Linux or Sco or what ever) has a better File system. This made Oracle much faster when the DB is very very large.[font="Verdana"]Actually, most of my Oracle experience was with creating raw Oracle partitions to get around the fact that files on Unix filesystems sucked.[/font]
That I find it difficult to accept. It is accepted universally that Unix file system is far better than Windows File system. That is why everyone considers Unix to be much more faster than Windows or any other OS.
Heh... just because a million people may think so, where's the testing that says it is? I'm not saying either way because I don't have any testing to prove it one way or the other... that's how myths get started.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 14, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Jeff Moden (2/14/2009)
Roy Ernest (2/13/2009)
Bruce W Cassidy (2/12/2009)
Roy Ernest (2/11/2009)
One thing I have seen is that Unix (Linux or Sco or what ever) has a better File system. This made Oracle much faster when the DB is very very large.[font="Verdana"]Actually, most of my Oracle experience was with creating raw Oracle partitions to get around the fact that files on Unix filesystems sucked.[/font]
That I find it difficult to accept. It is accepted universally that Unix file system is far better than Windows File system. That is why everyone considers Unix to be much more faster than Windows or any other OS.
Heh... just because a million people may think so, where's the testing that says it is? I'm not saying either way because I don't have any testing to prove it one way or the other... that's how myths get started.
I thought people got that impression because Unix was a slim, unbloated platform whereas windows was FAT :w00t:
Max
February 14, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Max (2/14/2009)
I thought people got that impression because Unix was a slim, unbloated platform whereas windows was FAT :w00t:
😛
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 15, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Roy Ernest (2/13/2009)
Bruce W Cassidy (2/12/2009)
Roy Ernest (2/11/2009)
One thing I have seen is that Unix (Linux or Sco or what ever) has a better File system. This made Oracle much faster when the DB is very very large.[font="Verdana"]Actually, most of my Oracle experience was with creating raw Oracle partitions to get around the fact that files on Unix filesystems sucked.[/font]
That I find it difficult to accept. It is accepted universally that Unix file system is far better than Windows File system. That is why everyone considers Unix to be much more faster than Windows or any other OS.
[font="Verdana"]It's true. Unix/Linux has only gained things like transactioning and journalling file systems fairly recently. When NTFS first came out on NT 3.1, it was fairly "cutting edge". Having said that, the first thing we wanted to do to get performance out of Oracle on NT was to build the database in raw partitions. 😀
Seriously, I/O used to be slow, regardless of platform. We used to have tricks like manually laying out data files across separate spindles and controllers, splitting different types of indexes and data and logging and temporary files, etc. Even RAID 10 controllers weren't fast enough.
So this was on Data General, SGI, Sun (SunOS and Solaris both), IBM AIX, and an early version of Red Hat. Er... thinks back it's been over 10 years now since I have used a raw partition.
[/font]
February 15, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Max (2/14/2009)
I thought people got that impression because Unix was a slim, unbloated platform whereas windows was FAT :w00t:
[font="Verdana"]Wow, what version/brand of Unix are you using? I wanna meet it![/font]
February 15, 2009 at 7:15 pm
Steve Jones - Editor (2/9/2009)
SQL Server = Oracle = DB2Maybe not ==, but each has things the other doesn't and for 99% of us out there, any of them will do. It's a little silly to argue the 1% issue where you have an extreme system. You could probably use any of them, but by the point you're an extreme case, you're likely committed to one anyway.
Access isn't the same as SQL Server, and I don't like it, but mostly because it encourages very bad design and habits from users that don't know better. And then they cause other issues in an organization because the need is there for an application. Not sure how to solve it, but I like Access moving to a SQL engine.
Not even close... in no way is Oracle even close to SQL Server or vice versa. Let's start with the basics, like returning a result set to a GUI or writing a set based trigger.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 15, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Perry Whittle (2/9/2009)
Oracle is by far the most powerful and flexible of the two.In Oracle RAC the distributed cache memory is shared between the cluster nodes and this offers failover and load balancing capabilities way above SQL server
Heh... that's one man's opinion. Anything that won't even allow for more than a 30 character object name certainly isn't the most flexible of the two. And, how do YOU return a result set from a stored procedure?
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
Viewing 15 posts - 181 through 195 (of 250 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply