Re: Oracle vs MS SQL Server

In article <01bdcd0b$912fb880$ed0fb9c2_at_noone>, Gianluca Hotz <ghotz_at_alphasys.it> wrote:
>I know nothing about version 8, but I found
>the administrative course for version 7 quite heavy.

Of course 8 is even "heavier", even without some of the newer features such as "nested tables" etc.

>Moreover while more powerful, the PL-SQL is much more
>complicated than T-SQL.

PL/SQL is a real computer language. A fairly complex one originally based on ADA as a model. I can't comment on T-SQL not having had much exposure to it, but I can state that PL/SQL will afford you the ability to create quite sophisticated applications with a minimal need to reach outside of the database. Admittedly that's a double- edged sword: as a proprietary solution it does render your application more dependent upon Oracle itself.

>IMHO you should take the SQL Server course:
>
>- setup is much simpler

This is a "bum rap" on Oracle. The fact of the matter is that setting up Oracle in a small environment is very simple. The NT and Win95 version of Oracle server (as far as I know MS still hasn't bothered to port SQL Server to Win95) have default setups that will work very well with little or no modification. Then, if you need to make modifications because you are encountering size related problems, Oracle affords you the ability to make changes in virtually any aspect of the system. Even if you are reluctant to use Oracle support, there are plenty of third party resources that explain every parameter in great detail.

Above, I noted that developing in PL/SQL does constitute something of a lock-in situation, but we find the same being true of SQL Server. If your database becomes too complex or two important to trust to NT, with Oracle you can move it with little fuss or muss to dozens of Unix platforms (now including Linux) as well as even larger class installations (OS/390, etc).

>- administration has been simplified to the point that
> you can forget about it when developing small databases

See above. The same is true for a large number of instances for Oracle. I've developed dozens of "small" databases using Oracle which have required only trivial change from the default install.

>- chances are that you will find more and more SQL Server
> databases around in the near future, small companies
> simply don't have the money for a skilled Oracle
> consultant.

So, SQL Server consultants will be working for free? Because if your claim is that applications will be magically simpler to implement in SQL Server than Oracle, I have to admit I've never seen such a case. And how much does it cost to deal with problems resulting from the fact that various critical features simply don't exist in SQL Server?

One thing that I think often missed in these discussions is that Oracle can be the simplest product to use under a great many scenarios. Oracle SQL is a very simple implementation, SQL*Plus continues to be (imo) a powerful and easy to use window on the database, and many of the Oracle tools (Developer and Designer 2000) permit true rapid application development. In fact, I think most people who have gotten "over the hump" of the learning curve on these products can produce useful applications much more rapidly than those people developing in C, C++ or Visual Basic.

>You still have the chance to learn Oracle later and most
>of what you have learned (database and query design for
>example) will come handy.

Of course if you learn Oracle now and Oracle disappears into the great Microsoft void, making the transition to SQL Server should be a no-brainer. :-)

Adding two cents here and there. <smile again>

-- 
-----------------------
Jack F. Love
Opinions expressed are mine alone, unless you happen to agree