| Oracle looses against MS-SQL-Server [message #49632] |
Thu, 31 January 2002 22:11  |
Sabine
Messages: 7
Registered: January 2002
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Hello all,
we are now to decide wheather to use Oracle9 or MS-SQL-Server.Net for our application. Our comparisons show that MS is about two times faster than Oracle both in inserts or selects, little or many data. We access the database over C# / OLEDB with the Oracle provider. This result is terrible as we all worked with Oracle up to now and don't want to use MS-SQL-Server.
Can anybody give me a hope, how I could speed up my Oracle9 (dedicated server modus)??
Thanx Sabine
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oracle looses against MS-SQL-Server [message #49650 is a reply to message #49632] |
Fri, 01 February 2002 05:08  |
Mike
Messages: 417
Registered: September 1998
|
Senior Member |
|
|
have you tried it with one session or several sessions inserting data at the same time?
Which amout of data are you using?
What kind of queries are you runing?
For what will de DB be used to?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| now MS-SQL-Server looses :-) [message #49671 is a reply to message #49632] |
Sun, 03 February 2002 22:11 |
Sabine
Messages: 7
Registered: January 2002
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Danke :-)
You are right, we hadn't considered the bitmap indexes so far. But partitioning isn't useful.
In two millions rows there are only 500 different values! I'm now preparing the implementation of these indexes...
After all the tuning till now now Oracle is twice as fast as MSSQL. Gottseidank
But I have to confess that we didn't tune the MSSQL, so it isn't a fair contest...
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oracle looses against MS-SQL-Server [message #49674 is a reply to message #49666] |
Sun, 03 February 2002 23:36 |
Maurice
Messages: 8
Registered: February 2002
|
Junior Member |
|
|
You can find it on metalink (metalink.oracle.com). To have access to metalink you need an accout. If you have not such a account check whit Oracle Support or the person which sold you Oracle.
Maurice
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: now MS-SQL-Server looses :-) [message #49684 is a reply to message #49632] |
Mon, 04 February 2002 05:39 |
Maurice
Messages: 8
Registered: February 2002
|
Junior Member |
|
|
I'm suprised that partitioning has not improved the performance in a DWH environement.
Are you sure you have (sub)partitioned the table by a relevant key? Have you used the appropriate partitionning methode (range, hash or list)?
|
|
|
|
| Re: now MS-SQL-Server looses :-) [message #49698 is a reply to message #49684] |
Mon, 04 February 2002 22:33 |
Sabine
Messages: 7
Registered: January 2002
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Sorry, my answer was a bit undefined ;-)
Exactly I meant, that I didn't consider to partitionate the tables anyway as there is no relevant key (for a range partitioning). So far. But now I "rtfm" once again and maybe I'll try to use a hash partitioning. Unfortunately the big boss didn't decide until now weather to use standard edition :-( or enterprise edition :-)
But you see: the main decision - MS or Oracle - is done! :-))
|
|
|
|
] 
Blog
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
