Re: Oracle v. MS SQL Server ?

As is the case with most questions in the IT world, the answer is "it depends". In this case, it depends on what your needs are. My company uses both, we pick one or the other based on application requirements.

Oracle can run on most of the common OS's available, SQL Server is Windows NT only. So comparisons between the two are questionable. But since I administer both Oracle and SQL Server on NT platforms I will relay what I've observered, for whatever it's worth.

Oracle, overall, slightly outperforms SQL Server on the same hardware on NT, but not by much.

Oracle is much more difficult to administer than SQL Server. SQL Server is a breeze. Oracle requires a lot of baby sitting.

Oracle has a unique locking architecture that almost eliminates the lock contention you can get with SQL Server. I'll be the first to admit that this issue really lies with the application design. But the reality is that most applications are not developed with the DBMS locking architecture in mind. SQL Server 6.5 locks at the page level (2k pages). Oracle locks at the row level. Plus, Oracle has "read consistent" data views by virtue of having rollback segments. This means database "writers" don't block "readers".

Finally, SQL Server is much cheaper than Oracle.

So, in general, if given the choice, we tend to pick SQL Server over Oracle on the NT platform...unless we think the application will need the more granular locking Oracle provides. Often times, we don't get the choice anyway because the new application is purchased and the choice of RDBMS is dictated by the vendor.

JamesBri4 wrote in message <19981002144157.25965.00005447_at_ng38.aol.com>...
>
>What is the better database Oracle v. MS SQL Server?
>I've had proponnents of both try to sell me on their product, what's your
>opinion?
>Which one has the better features?
>
>PS. I am posting the same question on the MS SQL Server to equalize the
results
>
Received on Fri Oct 02 1998 - 14:43:14 CDT