| Author |
Message |
|
Ling
#1 / 234
|
 SQL server Vs Oracle Hi all, Our project team is looking into upsizing a VB/Access database to either MS SQL Server/ Oracle on NT. We don't know what their main differences are and which one we should use. Any information regarding this subject or any recommendation will be very appreciated. Thanks in advance
Ling
|
| Sat, 20 Oct 2001 03:00:00 GMT |
|
 |
|
AJ
#2 / 234
|
SQL server Vs Oracle You will probably get a different response to this based on the most recently/frequently used dbms of the responder. Having said that (and yes, I am currently using SQL Server), for most applications SQL Server is lower cost (Oracle is 3 to 12 times more expensive according the a recent study by the Gartner Group) and adequate for everything but very large databases. SQL Server as a general rule also has lower support and hardware requirements. The biggest plus of Oracle is that it runs on unix as well as NT. For more detail search dejanews, there are several rants/raves for either
product.
Quote:
>Hi all, >Our project team is looking into upsizing a VB/Access database to either MS >SQL Server/ Oracle on NT. We don't know what their main differences are and >which one we should use. Any information regarding this subject or any >recommendation will be very appreciated. >Thanks in advance
>Ling
|
| Sat, 20 Oct 2001 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
Jerry Gitome
#3 / 234
|
SQL server Vs Oracle Hi Ling, If you are satisfied with your present Access database and are upgrading in
order to gain capacity and speed this is a no brainer -- stay with
Microsoft, go with SQL*Server.
I say this because if your needs have satisfied by Access it is unlikely
that you will grow to the point where you need Oracle's scalability and
stability. And, of course, if you do eventually outgrow SQL*Server your
upgrade to Oracle will be relatively painless.
regards
Jerry Gitomer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
Quote:
>Hi all, >Our project team is looking into upsizing a VB/Access database to either MS >SQL Server/ Oracle on NT. We don't know what their main differences are and >which one we should use. Any information regarding this subject or any >recommendation will be very appreciated. >Thanks in advance
>Ling
|
| Sat, 20 Oct 2001 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
Arvin Meye
#4 / 234
|
SQL server Vs Oracle Quote:
> And, of course, if you do eventually outgrow SQL*Server your
>upgrade to Oracle will be relatively painless.
Upgrading to Oracle is never painless. But if you'd outgrown SQL-Server, you are a multi-billion dollar, multi-national corporation, with the ability to hire consultants who won't have to ask the question. ----- Arvin Meyer
|
| Sat, 20 Oct 2001 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
Piotr Kolodzie
#5 / 234
|
SQL server Vs Oracle Quote:
>Upgrading to Oracle is never painless.
I agree with that. Moving between SQLServ and Oracle (as well as between Oracle and SQLServ) is a pain if stored procedures/triggers are used. If they are heavily used, the pain may be too large to bear. Quote: >But if you'd outgrown SQL-Server, you are a multi-billion dollar,
>multi-national corporation, with the ability to hire consultants
>who won't have to ask the question.
I don't think so. I think that Oracle is much more adequate platform for high concurrency level applications with significant hot-spots areas for example. Still need to be a billion dolar corporation ? --
Just my private opinion.
|
| Sun, 21 Oct 2001 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
Billy Verreynn
#6 / 234
|
SQL server Vs Oracle Quote:
>Having said that (and yes, I am currently using SQL Server),
>for most applications SQL Server is lower cost (Oracle is 3
>to 12 times more expensive according the a recent study by
>the Gartner Group) and adequate for everything but very large databases.
Seeing that we are qouting market research and stats here - Oracle is showing a 42% increase in growth over the 17% increase in growth of SQL-Server for the last year according to an IT newspaper I read a few months ago. And these figures are for Windows-NT!! But then most marketing stats are bull and I some of the biggest {*filter*}I ever
read came from the Gartner Group.
SQL-Server may be adequate for everything but very large databases (though I
have strong doubts about this statement) - but the emphasis here is
on -adequate-. Not good. Not ideal. Not robust. Not mature. Not scalable.
Not flexible. Not powerful. Adequate.
Quote: >SQL Server as a general rule also has lower support and hardware
>requirements.
The reason for lower levels of support is because SQL-Server attempts to automate many of the functions a DBA usually performs. For a small database, SQL-Server's attempt at playing the role of a DBA works. On larger databases - well I rather have a real DBA doing the administration of a database containing critical data than to trust the people who designed and wrote Windows'95 to play software DBA for me. As for hardware requirements. I disagree. Oracle's hardware footprint is
related to what you are trying to do with it. And this does not necessarily
involve data volume as complexity also plays a critical role.
Quote: >The biggest plus of Oracle is that it runs on unix as well as
>NT.
IMHO the biggest plus of Oracle is that IT IS SIMPLY BETTER THAN SQL-SERVER. Period. There - I said it. I feel better already. Please flame away. :-)
If cost is an issue and you simply need something better to replace an
Access database, then by all means go for SQL-Server. Or even Interbase (I
think it's even cheaper than SQL-Server with an even smaller software
footprint). But if you are getting you feet wet with client-server
architecture and a growing database and expanding user requirements... Think
twice before simply buying into Microsoft's SQL-Server strategy as that will
tie you to Microsoft's closed systems strategy.
regards,
Billy
|
| Sun, 21 Oct 2001 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
Randy Bake
#7 / 234
|
SQL server Vs Oracle Another angle not mentioned in the other (mostly anti-SQL Server) posts: If you do many joins and are using the INNER JOIN or LEFT OUTER JOIN syntax,
then you will have to rewrite any of your Access queries that use these. SQL
Server will accept most Access SELECT statement syntax without modification.
If you are an MS shop (and it appears that you are based on your question),
I would go with SQL Server, if only because all the Oracle stuff will appear
totally foreign to what you are used to. SQL Server (particularly 7.0) is
*much* easier to set up and administer. Oracle can certainly claim
scalability advantages, but these aren't likely to apply to an upsized
Access database, nor are they likely to apply to anything running on NT.
Randy
Quote:
>Hi all, >Our project team is looking into upsizing a VB/Access database to either MS >SQL Server/ Oracle on NT. We don't know what their main differences are and >which one we should use. Any information regarding this subject or any >recommendation will be very appreciated. >Thanks in advance
>Ling
|
| Sun, 21 Oct 2001 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
Frédéric BROUAR
#8 / 234
|
SQL server Vs Oracle Quote:
> Hi all, > Our project team is looking into upsizing a VB/Access database to > either MS > SQL Server/ Oracle on NT. We don't know what their main differences > are and > which one we should use. Any information regarding this subject or any > recommendation will be very appreciated.
> Thanks in advance
> Ling
1 - Oracle runs on more plateforms than Microsoft SQL Server 2 - SQL statement in Oracle are closest to standard than SQL server 3 - Oracle had a greater part of the SQL C/S market than SQL Server, so you will find more specialist on Oracle designing. 4 - Larry Ellison had make a 1 million $ bet to anyone can demonstrate that Oracle is under 100 time faster than SQL server And the bet has not been paid yet !!! 5 - the strategy of Microsoft is to make you a prisonner of thoses systems, so that, when your data will be on a MS system, it will ever coste a lot : to maintain version or to migrate... MS is a super, maximized, and optimized making money machine and that's all ! Frederic BROUARD - databases conceptor in FRANCE
DELPHI - Paradox - SQL C/S expert
|
| Mon, 22 Oct 2001 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
Vanderghas
#9 / 234
|
SQL server Vs Oracle Hi, I don't think Ron Soukup was part of the team that has wrote W95.
Furthermore, if I let a wizard writing a form for me, that doesn't mean I
consider the job is finished at that point. Same for database management.
I don't see any real fact in your argumentation. If I can agree on some
analysts at Gartner Group, I won't generalize.
You just ask us to believe you on your word when you said "it is it,
period". Well, I don't, period.
Vanderghast, Access MPV.
Quote:
> >Having said that (and yes, I am currently using SQL Server),
> >for most applications SQL Server is lower cost (Oracle is 3
> >to 12 times more expensive according the a recent study by
> >the Gartner Group) and adequate for everything but very large databases.
> Seeing that we are qouting market research and stats here - Oracle is
> showing a 42% increase in growth over the 17% increase in growth of
> SQL-Server for the last year according to an IT newspaper I read a few
> months ago. And these figures are for Windows-NT!!
> But then most marketing stats are bull and I some of the biggest {*filter*}I
ever
> read came from the Gartner Group.
> SQL-Server may be adequate for everything but very large databases (though
I
> have strong doubts about this statement) - but the emphasis here is
> on -adequate-. Not good. Not ideal. Not robust. Not mature. Not scalable.
> Not flexible. Not powerful. Adequate.
> >SQL Server as a general rule also has lower support and hardware
> >requirements.
> The reason for lower levels of support is because SQL-Server attempts to
> automate many of the functions a DBA usually performs. For a small
database,
> SQL-Server's attempt at playing the role of a DBA works. On larger
> databases - well I rather have a real DBA doing the administration of a
> database containing critical data than to trust the people who designed
and
> wrote Windows'95 to play software DBA for me.
> As for hardware requirements. I disagree. Oracle's hardware footprint is
> related to what you are trying to do with it. And this does not
necessarily
> involve data volume as complexity also plays a critical role.
> >The biggest plus of Oracle is that it runs on unix as well as
> >NT.
> IMHO the biggest plus of Oracle is that IT IS SIMPLY BETTER THAN
SQL-SERVER.
> Period.
> There - I said it. I feel better already. Please flame away. :-)
> If cost is an issue and you simply need something better to replace an
> Access database, then by all means go for SQL-Server. Or even Interbase (I
> think it's even cheaper than SQL-Server with an even smaller software
> footprint). But if you are getting you feet wet with client-server
> architecture and a growing database and expanding user requirements...
Think
> twice before simply buying into Microsoft's SQL-Server strategy as that
will
> tie you to Microsoft's closed systems strategy.
> regards,
> Billy
|
| Mon, 22 Oct 2001 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
Jim Kenned
#10 / 234
|
SQL server Vs Oracle How do people feel about adequate ? If you just had sex with someone and they said you were adequate how would you feel? I dare say I would not be boasting about my prowess. If they told someone else that my {*filter*} performance was adequate I daresay that would not be a ringing endor{*filter*}t. Jim Quote:
>You will probably get a different response to this based on the most >recently/frequently used dbms of the responder. Having said that (and yes, >I am currently using SQL Server), for most applications SQL Server is lower >cost (Oracle is 3 to 12 times more expensive according the a recent study by >the Gartner Group) and adequate for everything but very large databases. >SQL Server as a general rule also has lower support and hardware >requirements. The biggest plus of Oracle is that it runs on unix as well as >NT. >For more detail search dejanews, there are several rants/raves for either
>product.
>>Hi all,
>>Our project team is looking into upsizing a VB/Access database to either
MS
>>SQL Server/ Oracle on NT. We don't know what their main differences are
and
>>which one we should use. Any information regarding this subject or any
>>recommendation will be very appreciated.
>>Thanks in advance
>>Ling
|
| Mon, 22 Oct 2001 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
Randy Bake
#11 / 234
|
SQL server Vs Oracle Quote:
>> Hi all,
>> Our project team is looking into upsizing a VB/Access database to
>> either MS
>> SQL Server/ Oracle on NT. We don't know what their main differences
>> are and
>> which one we should use. Any information regarding this subject or any
>> recommendation will be very appreciated.
>> Thanks in advance
>> Ling
>1 - Oracle runs on more plateforms than Microsoft SQL Server
Irrelevant, since he wants to run on NT Quote: >2 - SQL statement in Oracle are closest to standard than SQL server
Oracle does not support ANSI join syntax, meaning he will have to rewrite all of his Access JOINs Quote: >3 - Oracle had a greater part of the SQL C/S market than SQL Server, so
>you will find more specialist on Oracle designing.
Or he can administer SQL Server himself and not have to pay anyone. Quote: >4 - Larry Ellison had make a 1 million $ bet to anyone can demonstrate
>that Oracle is under 100 time faster than SQL server
>And the bet has not been paid yet !!!
True, but this is a hardware scalability issue. Larry wins this bet by using some 1000+CPU/hard drive machine that NT won't run on. Quote: >5 - the strategy of Microsoft is to make you a prisonner of thoses
>systems, so that, when your data will be on a MS system, it will ever
>coste a lot : to maintain version or to migrate... MS is a super,
>maximized, and optimized making money machine and that's all !
Completely agreed, but for those of us that have already been seduced by the Dark Side of The Force, MS will forever dominate our destinies... 8) Quote: >Frederic BROUARD - databases conceptor in FRANCE
>DELPHI - Paradox - SQL C/S expert
|
| Mon, 22 Oct 2001 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
Jerry Gitome
#12 / 234
|
SQL server Vs Oracle To quote a posting in another thread: "The recent Microsoft Knowledge Base article Q225141 of 27-APR-1999
says that executing a query with a union can cause an error.
The suggested workaround is to not use union.
Instead one should create a stored procedure that inserts the records
from each select into a temporary table, and then
change the query to select from that temp table."
This type of bug is the reason that I, for one, prefer to have nothing to do
with SQL Server. Here we have basic SQL functionality that doesn't work.
What else slipped past their "quality control"?
If I dare to use SQL Server am I going to come in one morning and discover
that my database is scrambled beyond redemption and that my backups
corrupted?
I make my living as a DBA. As such my first responsibility is to assure the
integrity of the data in my databases. It really doesn't matter if an RDBMS
is faster, cheaper, easier to manage or whatever if it cannot guarantee the
integrity of the data it contains.
regards
Jerry Gitomer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Quote:
>Another angle not mentioned in the other (mostly anti-SQL Server) posts: >If you do many joins and are using the INNER JOIN or LEFT OUTER JOIN
syntax,
>then you will have to rewrite any of your Access queries that use these.
SQL
>Server will accept most Access SELECT statement syntax without
modification.
>If you are an MS shop (and it appears that you are based on your question),
>I would go with SQL Server, if only because all the Oracle stuff will
appear
>totally foreign to what you are used to. SQL Server (particularly 7.0) is
>*much* easier to set up and administer. Oracle can certainly claim
>scalability advantages, but these aren't likely to apply to an upsized
>Access database, nor are they likely to apply to anything running on NT.
>Randy
>>Hi all,
>>Our project team is looking into upsizing a VB/Access database to either
MS
>>SQL Server/ Oracle on NT. We don't know what their main differences are
and
>>which one we should use. Any information regarding this subject or any
>>recommendation will be very appreciated.
>>Thanks in advance
>>Ling
|
| Mon, 22 Oct 2001 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
Arvin Meye
#13 / 234
|
SQL server Vs Oracle Quote:
>1 - Oracle runs on more plateforms than Microsoft SQL Server
Who cares? NT is the platform of choice for the lowest operating cost. Quote: >2 - SQL statement in Oracle are closest to standard than SQL server
Only partially true, neither conforms to the SQL-92 standard. Quote: >3 - Oracle had a greater part of the SQL C/S market than SQL Server, so
>you will find more specialist on Oracle designing.
I doubt that is true everywhere, only is some major markets. Quote: >4 - Larry Ellison had make a 1 million $ bet to anyone can demonstrate
>that Oracle is under 100 time faster than SQL server
>And the bet has not been paid yet !!!
And lost that bet, he quietly withdrew it from the website when he saw he was going to lose. SQL-Server beat Oracle by 157% in one of the tests, and lost by 28% the other. Quote: >5 - the strategy of Microsoft is to make you a prisonner of thoses >systems, so that, when your data will be on a MS system, it will ever >coste a lot : to maintain version or to migrate... MS is a super, >maximized, and optimized making money machine and that's all ! >Frederic BROUARD - databases conceptor in FRANCE
>DELPHI - Paradox - SQL C/S expert
Judging by that answer, and your sig, we all can see the "winning" software packages you support. ----- Arvin Meyer
|
| Mon, 22 Oct 2001 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
Arvin Meye
#14 / 234
|
SQL server Vs Oracle How do you feel about your automobile? Is it *adequate* to get you where you're going? Or do you require $150K Ferrari (that breaks down weekly) to do the job of a $30K Buick? In business, one should be doing a cost/benefit analysis to determine policy, not reading Playboy or Cosmopolitan. ----- Arvin Meyer
Quote:
>How do people feel about adequate ? If you just had sex with someone and >they said you were adequate how would you feel? I dare say I would not be >boasting about my prowess. If they told someone else that my {*filter*} >performance was adequate I daresay that would not be a ringing endor{*filter*}t. >Jim
>>You will probably get a different response to this based on the most
>>recently/frequently used dbms of the responder. Having said that (and
yes,
>>I am currently using SQL Server), for most applications SQL Server is
lower
>>cost (Oracle is 3 to 12 times more expensive according the a recent study
>by
>>the Gartner Group) and adequate for everything but very large databases.
>>SQL Server as a general rule also has lower support and hardware
>>requirements. The biggest plus of Oracle is that it runs on unix as well
>as
>>NT.
|
| Mon, 22 Oct 2001 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
Arvin Meye
#15 / 234
|
SQL server Vs Oracle Did you see anything that would impact upon the integrity of the data? The data is not compromised, a query returned incorrect results, and a work around was provided to fix it. That happens in every DBMS. ----- Arvin Meyer
Quote:
>To quote a posting in another thread: >"The recent Microsoft Knowledge Base article Q225141 of 27-APR-1999
>says that executing a query with a union can cause an error.
>The suggested workaround is to not use union.
>Instead one should create a stored procedure that inserts the records
>from each select into a temporary table, and then
>change the query to select from that temp table."
>This type of bug is the reason that I, for one, prefer to have nothing to
do
>with SQL Server. Here we have basic SQL functionality that doesn't work.
>What else slipped past their "quality control"?
>If I dare to use SQL Server am I going to come in one morning and discover
>that my database is scrambled beyond redemption and that my backups
>corrupted?
>I make my living as a DBA. As such my first responsibility is to assure
the
>integrity of the data in my databases. It really doesn't matter if an
RDBMS
>is faster, cheaper, easier to manage or whatever if it cannot guarantee the
>integrity of the data it contains.
>regards
>Jerry Gitomer
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>---
>>Another angle not mentioned in the other (mostly anti-SQL Server) posts:
>>If you do many joins and are using the INNER JOIN or LEFT OUTER JOIN
>syntax,
>>then you will have to rewrite any of your Access queries that use these.
>SQL
>>Server will accept most Access SELECT statement syntax without
>modification.
>>If you are an MS shop (and it appears that you are based on your
question),
>>I would go with SQL Server, if only because all the Oracle stuff will
>appear
>>totally foreign to what you are used to. SQL Server (particularly 7.0) is
>>*much* easier to set up and administer. Oracle can certainly claim
>>scalability advantages, but these aren't likely to apply to an upsized
>>Access database, nor are they likely to apply to anything running on NT.
>>Randy
>>>Hi all,
>>>Our project team is looking into upsizing a VB/Access database to either
>MS
>>>SQL Server/ Oracle on NT. We don't know what their main differences are
>and
>>>which one we should use. Any information regarding this subject or any
>>>recommendation will be very appreciated.
>>>Thanks in advance
>>>Ling
|
| Mon, 22 Oct 2001 03:00:00 GMT |
|
| |
|
