Re: Comparison of Oracle commans Vs. SQL Server Commands

On May 26, 9:33 am, DA Morgan <damor..._at_psoug.org> wrote:
> euan.gar..._at_gmail.com wrote:
> > On May 24, 9:43 am, DA Morgan <damor..._at_psoug.org> wrote:
> >> Brian Peasland wrote:
> >>> Geri Reshef wrote:
> >>>> Where can I find a short comparision of SQL comands of both products?
> >>>> I need to find the Oracle equivalents of someSQL Servercommands
> >>>> (e.g. date functions).
> >>> This is one of the better ones I've found:
> >>>http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/reskit/part2/c0...
> >>> It's written by Microsoft in the hopes you'll migrate toSQL Server, but
> >>> you can use the doc to go the other way too!
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Brian
> >> I started reviewing the site but had to stop when my laughter started
> >> bothering those around me.
>
> >> This is priceless:
> >> "Clustering is a shared disk, hardware solution protecting against
> >> computer failure."
>
> >> Forget cache fusion.
> >> Forget TAF and FCF.
> >> Forget that RAC is not a hardware solution.
> >> Forget the fact that shared disk is a very small part of RAC.
>
> >> It is best to suspend one's synapses when reading Microsoft docs.
> >> --
> >> Daniel A. Morgan
> >> University of Washington
> >> damor..._at_x.washington.edu
> >> (replace x with u to respond)
> >> Puget Sound Oracle Users Groupwww.psoug.org-Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Did you bother to actually look at the context for your comment? This
> > is a 7 year old document...
>
> It is the web. If it is obsolete it is Microsoft's responsibility to
> update. As long as it is out there, on their URL, it is inaccurate.
> And it was inaccurate 7 years ago too.
> --
> Daniel A. Morgan
> University of Washington
> damor..._at_x.washington.edu
> (replace x with u to respond)
> Puget Sound Oracle Users Groupwww.psoug.org- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Actually it should not be updated, this was a comparison of 2 older products that was valid at the time(despite your comments), just because SQL Server has shipped 2 full versions since then and Oracle has shipped 3 full (and several r2/r3 type releases) since then does not change that paper.

What is wrong in this case is that this reference is the one that people hit when they search MSDN and its not clear how old the article is. I've sent mail to some folks to see if they can get the 10g vs SQL2005 paper that exists and the 5 day SQL Server for Oracle DBAs class, to appear more prominently in the search lists. Received on Sun May 27 2007 - 02:34:32 CDT