| Author |
Topic |
|
AskSQLTeam
Ask SQLTeam Question
0 Posts |
 Posted - 2001-06-10 : 15:31:11
|
| Oracle may be a very powerful database, but getting it up and running is a nightmare. SQL Server may be a better answer. Article Link. |
|
|
wiremind
Starting Member
1 Post |
Posted - 2003-02-16 : 17:34:59
|
quote:
In my post, I say Oracle's market is going to diminish. I think their problem is they don't have OS for. If we look at 100GB database and under, MS-SQL is certainily better. WITH SQL-2000, I would think it will go up to 300GB.Above 500 GB, DB2-UDB and NCR is certaily better than Oracle. Especially over 1 terabyte. NCR is definitely better. All the DB2, NCR, MS-SQL have OS advanatege. with DB2 and NCR pushing down, MS-SQL bumps up. I did not see the promising market for Oracle. I wish Oralce will NOT become next NOVEL. Well, Oracle still have a solid market share and their share is increasing, as informtix and sybase is losing share. After that, except Oracle merge with SUN, I do not think Oracle can compete with MS-SQL, DB2 and NCR. That is my thoughts. Daniel
As a developer/DBA i must disagree with many of your opinions. First of all MS did not entirely invented SQL Server , it was created by Sybase and as usual bought by MS.Second of all, Linux is not just a stable platform but a daugher of UNIX which is the strongest platform , dont compare with AS/400 or VMS. Oracle under unix has greater capabilities then SQL server under MS windoze. Unix as you remember is multi tasking. I ran into a factory server with SQL server 2000 , and guess what, i saw that in idling mode the thing was eating 300+M of operative memory RAM , what is the purpose of that. I may be wrong but as a junio Oracle DBA, i quite enjoy the *NIX style architecture of Oracle. THe RAC ( real application cluster ) is a progressive evidence of Oracle living.Please dont be offended MS people but easiness comes with problems, so enjoy the UNIX life under which serious company lives. |
 |
|
|
Merkin
Funky Drop Bear Fearing SQL Dude!
4970 Posts |
Posted - 2003-02-17 : 05:00:44
|
I love it when a 2 year old thread gets revived  [edit]quote:
As a developer/DBA i must disagree with many of your opinions.
Actually most of the human race disagrees with Daniel's "oponions". You don't see much of him round here anymore.DamianEdited by - merkin on 02/17/2003 05:03:18 |
|
|
|
ameisez
Starting Member
6 Posts |
Posted - 2003-08-20 : 04:58:22
|
Just butting in folks.Im the newbies among the newbies and i want to seek for advice from good DBAs here.I am about to handle a Database coz the management thinks I am a wizard (eventhough i never pretended to be) and they want me to handle a loyalty program.first the company we are dealing suggested ORACLE, but after sometime and for any reason I dont know, they told us we can use MS SQL instead. Thats why Im hear now, I want to ask if I did the right thing coz i agreed to them to use MSSQL? I still have the chance of changing my decission if i did it wrong.excess: I dont have any idea on both (ORACLE & MS SQL) the management is under cost cutting, maybe that is why they just pull me out from customer service to INSTANT DBA ... i might be checking here often when the project comes online |
|
|
|
robvolk
Most Valuable Yak
15732 Posts |
Posted - 2003-08-20 : 07:51:24
|
| If they are looking to cut costs, then SQL Server is definitely advantageous. I honestly don't know what Oracle costs these days, but unless they had a fire sale over there it will still be considerably more expensive than SQL Server. You can also install SQL Server far quicker and more easily than Oracle. Lastly, if you are a Windows shop, don't even think of running Oracle. If you're not running Unix then Oracle is not for you. |
|
|
|
nr
SQLTeam MVY
12543 Posts |
Posted - 2003-08-20 : 09:19:56
|
| If you are really interested look at the very long and tedious current thread athttp://www.developersdex.com/sql/message.asp?r=3315359&p=580I still think it doesn't matter what the products can do - you will build a better system in whichever you know better.==========================================Cursors are useful if you don't know sql.DTS can be used in a similar way.Beer is not cold and it isn't fizzy. |
|
|
|
ameisez
Starting Member
6 Posts |
Posted - 2003-08-21 : 02:01:13
|
| Ok guys... I need your comment and advice here.. ill tell you the complete setting.=========================The loyalty program is on a shopping mall.All participating shops will give discount to loyalty program memberEach member has a chip cardEach store has a Chip Card readerAll data transaction will be logged in the local machineAt the end of the day, the server will dial and connect to collect the data from each terminal on participating outletsAfter collecting data, the server will print activity log to see if all the data has been collected without any errorsThen print the summary of the data that has just been collected========================Now the Administrator (that's me) has no idea on any of MS SQL or ORACLE that is why we stated in the contract that I should have the propper training before the developing company leave us.FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO KNOWS MS SQL OR ORACLE OR BOTH...WHICH IS A MORE ADVANTAGEOUS CHOICE? ORACLE OR MS SQL AND WHY???by the way... I know PC (Windows) OS and nothing elseand one last thing??? How hard will it be to be a DBA if you know nothing but MS ACCESS??? |
|
|
|
ameisez
Starting Member
6 Posts |
Posted - 2003-08-21 : 02:03:12
|
| Ok guys... I need your comment and advice here.. ill tell you the complete setting.=========================The loyalty program is on a shopping mall.All participating shops will give discount to loyalty program memberEach member has a chip cardEach store has a Chip Card readerAll data transaction will be logged in the local machineAt the end of the day, the server will dial and connect to collect the data from each terminal on participating outletsAfter collecting data, the server will print activity log to see if all the data has been collected without any errorsThen print the summary of the data that has just been collected========================Now the Administrator (that's me) has no idea on any of MS SQL or ORACLE that is why we stated in the contract that I should have the propper training before the developing company leave us.FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO KNOWS MS SQL OR ORACLE OR BOTH...WHICH IS A MORE ADVANTAGEOUS CHOICE? ORACLE OR MS SQL AND WHY???by the way... I know PC (Windows) OS and nothing elseand one last thing??? How hard will it be to be a DBA if you know nothing but MS ACCESS??? |
|
|
|
ameisez
Starting Member
6 Posts |
Posted - 2003-08-21 : 02:15:56
|
| TO the admincan you delete 1 of that repeated message. My computer hangs the first time i click submit... so i try again... i restart and now i see both of it has been sent.. sorryameisez |
|
|
|
ameisez
Starting Member
6 Posts |
Posted - 2003-08-21 : 02:28:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by nr
I still think it doesn't matter what the products can do - you will build a better system in whichever you know better.
I think it does for the first time... (just my opinion) |
|
|
|
whitesword
Starting Member
17 Posts |
Posted - 2003-08-21 : 04:34:27
|
| I have a lot of MS Access experience too. I have just had the same questions posted at me a couple of months back and the final answer that we decided on was to stay with the Microsoft suite. Several reasons: It was easier to install, there was a lot of support for it and we could upsize our Access projects to SQL server with a wizard. I have spent the last two months learning about stored procedures and am still learning. I have had to rewrite a number of them to increase their efficiency due to the scaling but it was not that difficult as all the documentation and help files (specifically Books Online) were familiar to us all.In short, it was an easier transition, and best solution for our budget.That's my 2c worth.CheersRoger |
|
|
|
nr
SQLTeam MVY
12543 Posts |
Posted - 2003-08-21 : 15:09:30
|
| >> Now the Administrator (that's me) has no idea on any of MS SQL or ORACLE that is why we stated in the contract that I should have the propper training before the developing company leave us.How hard will it be to be a DBA if you know nothing but MS ACCESS???How much do you know about database theory and how critical is the system?Working on a single system on your own probably take a couple of years to become competent as you would not have exposure to different scenarios.A lot faster if you have exposure to different systems and other DBA's (better if they are experienced but you gain a lot from discussion even if not).Look at all the threads on this forum and any other sql forums you can find to see the sorts of mistakes you can make and the things you need to put in place.I would suggest you get an experienced freelance dba to help with the transition and to teach you.==========================================Cursors are useful if you don't know sql.DTS can be used in a similar way.Beer is not cold and it isn't fizzy. |
|
|
|
euan_garden
Microsoft SQL Server Product Team
34 Posts |
Posted - 2003-08-25 : 21:46:30
|
| Just to make sure that you are working off correct facts.SQL Server 7.0 and 2000 were not bought my Microsoft, 7.0 was a development from the ground up by MS. Most of the code from Sybase was thrown out and what little remains is slowly being rewritten in each later release.On the 300MB issue, thats actually on optimisation, memory allocation and deallocation is an expensive operation, once SQL Server allocates memory into its global pool from the OS it will not be released until the system is under memory pressure or it is forced to. Thus when demand rises SQL Server does not have to allocate memory, as it already has been allocated.As to scaleable SQL Server apps I suggest reviewing some of the following case studies.http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluation/casestudies/scalability.asp-Euan[/quote]As a developer/DBA i must disagree with many of your opinions. First of all MS did not entirely invented SQL Server , it was created by Sybase and as usual bought by MS.Second of all, Linux is not just a stable platform but a daugher of UNIX which is the strongest platform , dont compare with AS/400 or VMS. Oracle under unix has greater capabilities then SQL server under MS windoze. Unix as you remember is multi tasking. I ran into a factory server with SQL server 2000 , and guess what, i saw that in idling mode the thing was eating 300+M of operative memory RAM , what is the purpose of that. I may be wrong but as a junio Oracle DBA, i quite enjoy the *NIX style architecture of Oracle. THe RAC ( real application cluster ) is a progressive evidence of Oracle living.Please dont be offended MS people but easiness comes with problems, so enjoy the UNIX life under which serious company lives. [/quote] |
|
|
|
nr
SQLTeam MVY
12543 Posts |
Posted - 2003-08-26 : 01:40:25
|
| lol>> junio Oracle DBAThink that sums it up.Wonder if he has more knowledge of Oracle than of architecture and database theory.>> what is the purpose of that. With a bit of thought it's obvious - just think about the other options.Basic fact - you almost certainly won't get any useful opinions from a quick look at a product and any single facts should be considered within the environment they are discovered not in isolation.==========================================Cursors are useful if you don't know sql.DTS can be used in a similar way.Beer is not cold and it isn't fizzy. |
|
|
|
dbaperson
Starting Member
2 Posts |
|
|
eyechart
Master Smack Fu Yak Hacker
3575 Posts |
|
|
niktrs
Starting Member
1 Post |
Posted - 2007-09-30 : 04:00:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Merkin
quote:
Than again you'll always get the dyed in the wool Oracle DBA's who refuse to acknowledge there are better products out there
That is not restricted to RDBMS's everywhere in technology there is this "mine is bigger that yours" mentality. Linux v Windows v Mac v BeOS v BSD etcASP v Cold Fusion v PHP v Perl v JSPetc etc etcBoringMost people refuse to look at the fact that every product has strengths and weaknesses but at the end of the day you have to use the tool that you are good at. There is no point using SQL server if you completely rock at Oracle. Likewise with various programming languages, you see posts on boards like "I use ASP, should I use cold fusion ? " Hell no! Not if your skills (and those of your team) lie with ASP.That being said, I aged about 5 years on the last Oracle project I did ..... Piece of crap that it is Anyway, just needed to get that out of my system.......Damian
I agree with you Demian.I do not understand people that are arguing for which is the best OS ,the best RDBS etc. Do they understand that our employers don't care for these?They only want to get the job done!It's not linux, windows, Oracle or SQL server.It's IT! |
|
|
|
nr
SQLTeam MVY
12543 Posts |
Posted - 2007-09-30 : 13:25:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Merkin
I love it when a 2 year old thread gets revived 
It's that anniversary again?Before realising how old this was I read>> SQL Server 7.0 and 2000 were not bought my Microsoft, 7.0 was a development from the ground up by MS. Most of the code from Sybase was thrown out and what little remains is slowly being rewritten in each later release.Wonder if the poster has changed his mind since.==========================================Cursors are useful if you don't know sql.DTS can be used in a similar way.Beer is not cold and it isn't fizzy. |
|
|
|
|
Article: Oracle vs. SQL Server - An Issue Of Complexity