February 15, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Lynn Pettis (2/9/2009)
Each has its place, neither is actually better than the other for most applications. You get into the niche areas, that no longer becomes the true. There may actually be areas where both are the worst choice.I am SQL Server trained, having learned it from the start. If I have an opportunity to extend my career and it happens that I then have go to the Dark Side and learn Oracle, then I will do so.
So, you're not actually used Oracle and you don't know that "each has its place". Since you cut your teeth on SQL Server, I'd be willing to bet that you'd pull all the hair from the left side of your head if you tried to make the switch. It's much easier to switch from Oracle to SQL Server than the other way.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 15, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Jeff Moden (2/15/2009)
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.
[font="Verdana"]Hands Jeff a chocolate bar.
Actually, you can return a result set from a stored procedure in Oracle, as a output parameter of type REF CURSOR (sorry if details are wrong, rusty memory here), and from memory, Visual Studio supports this syntax.
Set based trigger? You would evaluate an "RDBMS" on whether or not it supports a particular flavour of trigger? Oh dear.
The reality is that the platform is as good as what people do with it. People solve the same issues in Oracle as in SQL Server, just in slightly different ways. Some better, some worse. So from that respect, I agree with the original quote that SQL Server = Oracle = DB2.
[/font]
February 15, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Jeff Moden (2/15/2009)
Anything that won't even allow for more than a 30 character object name certainly isn't the most flexible of the two.
[font="Verdana"]Okay, now I have to agree with you. I seriously miss SQL Server's 128-length names, and the case preserving, case insensitive... I hate block capitals: they are harder to read. And hitting 30 characters in a name is easy![/font]
February 16, 2009 at 9:55 am
Bruce W Cassidy (2/15/2009)
Jeff Moden (2/15/2009)
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.[font="Verdana"]Hands Jeff a chocolate bar.
Actually, you can return a result set from a stored procedure in Oracle, as a output parameter of type REF CURSOR (sorry if details are wrong, rusty memory here), and from memory, Visual Studio supports this syntax.
Heh... yeah, I know how to do it, Bruce and you're 100% correct. But, you have to write the REF CURSOR... makes it a bear for troubleshooting. Agreed that once you have it all in the GUI, you still either have to step through the REF CURSOR or the RECORD SET, but the RECORD SET is a whole lot easier to troubleshoot on the SQL side of the house.
Set based trigger? You would evaluate an "RDBMS" on whether or not it supports a particular flavour of trigger? Oh dear.
Heh... obviously not. That's just one of the many different nuances between Oracle and SQL Server that I find very irritating on the Oracle side. I'd kill for a decent set of windowing aggregate functions, Regex, and CONNECT BY in SQL Server, but I'll give those things up for the ease of use and troubleshooting.
The reality is that the platform is as good as what people do with it. People solve the same issues in Oracle as in SQL Server, just in slightly different ways. Some better, some worse. So from that respect, I agree with the original quote that SQL Server = Oracle = DB2.
I don't... there's a huge paradigm shift between doing things in T-SQL and PL-SQL. Like I said, most folks in the PL-SQL world can make the shift to T-SQL a lot easier than the other way around... that is, once they figure out that they really shouldn't write procedureal code in T-SQL. 😉
But... that's what makes this forum and these kinds of discussions so much fun... lot's of information boils to the surface on good, healthy difference of opinion.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 16, 2009 at 9:58 am
Bruce W Cassidy (2/15/2009)
Jeff Moden (2/15/2009)
Anything that won't even allow for more than a 30 character object name certainly isn't the most flexible of the two.[font="Verdana"]Okay, now I have to agree with you. I seriously miss SQL Server's 128-length names, and the case preserving, case insensitive... I hate block capitals: they are harder to read. And hitting 30 characters in a name is easy![/font]
You must be online at the same time as me... missed this.
At least there's one pork chop in the bunch that we agree on. 😛
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 16, 2009 at 10:27 am
I know for a fact that Oracle will loose in a MS SQL Forum... But these many people against it ??:unsure:
-Roy
February 16, 2009 at 10:29 am
I'll give Oracle one thing. they seem to have found a way to convince management to pay more for DBAs on average!
February 16, 2009 at 11:01 am
Steve Jones - Editor (2/16/2009)
I'll give Oracle one thing. they seem to have found a way to convince management to pay more for DBAs on average!
Heh... yeah, I agree with that. But, I've also seen the beginnings of a trend that may soon reverse that. Managers are [font="Arial Black"]finally [/font]figuring out that someone qualified for "Java Developer with 10 years experience and some SQL" just aren't qualified to manage enterprise servers. 😛
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 16, 2009 at 11:10 am
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.
True, FreeBSD's (UFS and ZFS) and Linux (Ext3, JFS, ReiserFS and XFS) are really good but they are using much more cache than they should, maybe that is where they got better performance than NTFS, but NTFS wins in test of reliability.
-------------------------------------------------------------
"It takes 15 minutes to learn the game and a lifetime to master"
"Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality."
February 16, 2009 at 11:33 am
Roy Ernest (2/16/2009)
I know for a fact that Oracle will loose in a MS SQL Forum... But these many people against it ??:unsure:
Ya' think? Any stats to support your argument?
-- Edit - It's Monday afternoon and I'm starting to feel a lilttle fiesty......
-- You can't be late until you show up.
February 16, 2009 at 12:50 pm
tosscrosby (2/16/2009)
Roy Ernest (2/16/2009)
I know for a fact that Oracle will loose in a MS SQL Forum... But these many people against it ??:unsure:Ya' think? Any stats to support your argument?
-- Edit - It's Monday afternoon and I'm starting to feel a lilttle fiesty......
Heh... and it must've been a hell of a day.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 16, 2009 at 1:05 pm
[font="Verdana"]I guess I see it as "value to the business". Yes, there is (I agree) a paradigm shift in how you program between PL/SQL and T-SQL. And yes, I even agree that I prefer T-SQL (even though I miss some of the PL/SQL constructs.) But it's all about value to the business, not value to the programmer.
From that point of view, I would see any RDBMS as roughly equivalent. A business would judge which to implement on what support resources they have (including internal knowledge/experience, relationships with external vendors, etc), cost (I hope!) which would likely factor in existing licensing, and other factors such as "we really want to run this application, and it only runs on Oracle." Oh, and who they last had golf with.
I have yet to see a business judge an RDBMS on "which is easier to program in?"
[/font]
February 16, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Roy Ernest (2/16/2009)
I know for a fact that Oracle will loose in a MS SQL Forum... But these many people against it ??:unsure:
[font="Verdana"]I don't see many people (other than Jeff, who really needs to watch his blood sugar levels 😛 ) being "against" Oracle. We all know that the various platforms have their own strengths and weaknesses. But we all have our preferences too. And let's face it, we are on a SQL Server forum, which does say something about our preferences.
It's the same kind of argument that you get over which supercar is better. The reality is we'd all be happy to own a supercar, no matter which one. But that won't stop us arguing over which one is better.
[/font]
February 16, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Bruce W Cassidy (2/16/2009)
But it's all about value to the business, not value to the programmer.I have yet to see a business judge an RDBMS on "which is easier to program in?"
I know... that classic error in judgement occurs in many businesses. 😉
If it's easier to do the same job in, that which makes it easier to program in should always be taken into consideration. That's means the company saves money because they don't have to pay for higher-priced "Ninja" developers, the developers are happy which decreases the revolving door which keeps lost learning down saving money on retraining, and if it's easier to program in, you can normally get the job done much quicker, which also saves money.
I just left a company where they decided to shift to Oracle... half the experienced developers left (more than 3 years with the company) after just a couple of months. The ones left behind are now taking 2-3 times as long to write the same code. The testing takes 4 times longer. And, the product they're turning out is absolute crap because of the paradigm shift. Since some advanced programming techniques are required, they hired some Oracle developers... at $30k per year more than what they were paying. And, it's still crap compared to what they were turning out before the shift in databases.
Business needs to start considering "which is easier to program in?"
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 16, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Jeff Moden (2/15/2009)
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?
oohh lordy, is that a fresh bucket o pork chops i smell in the wind :unsure:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ya can't make an omelette without breaking just a few eggs" 😉
Viewing 15 posts - 196 through 210 (of 250 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply