Re: Pro's & Con's on Oracle & SQL Svr?

This could of course degenerate....

It is not in general true that Oracle DBA's tune etc for a point in time. One might as well say that SQL Server DBA's do nothing because the software does it all for them. Neither is true or fair.

Also , like many Oracle DBA's, I do not go by TPC benchmarks. There are at least two reasons for this

1. I do not run, and nor am I likely to the multi-million pound beasts that these benchmarks are obtained on and
2. And much more importantly, none of my database applications are the TPC benchmark and so it is just not valid to use them as a basis for assessing performance of my apps.

(one could of course include 3. Oracle doesn't figure highly if one was cynical enough <G>).

I ought to add that I entirely mistrust Larry's "9iAS is x times faster than your current solution" marketing guff for exactly the same reason.

What I do say is that both Oracle and SQL Server are enterprise class DBMS and almost certainly both will meet the needs of your company. The question as to which is better so often comes down to what environment do you have and what hardware and software expertise do you have or can you get. If you have 25 MSCE types in the comapny and no Unix experience at all you'd be pretty brave to go the Oracle route (even on NT). The reverse obviously also applies.In other words consider your business needs and skills before the technical capabilities of the product.

--
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
Audit Commission UK
"BP Margolin" <bpmargo_at_attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:3ac3695c_2_at_news3.prserv.net...


> Wayne,

>

> Just want to express a different viewpoint re:

>

> > Oracle, on the other hand, comes from a UNIX point of view, exposing

 almost


> > every possible setting: internal block sizes, archivelog settings,

 internal


> > memory allocation sizes, almost every possible data file, storage, and

> > allocation setting, extensive realtime performance monitoring

 information,


> > and a ton of other things.

>

> What you say is true. However the implication is open to interpretation.

 The


> SQL Server viewpoint is that it is more efficient (performance-wise) to

 have


> the database continually monitor itself and dynamically adjust its

 settings


> to reflect the load.

>

> With Oracle, the DBA has to "pick a point in time" and then issues

 settings


> for that point in time. While the settings for that point in time may be

> optimal, the likelihood that the database load is constant is relatively

> small.

>

> SQL Server, instead, continuously monitors itself and its performance, and

> dynamically adjusts its configuration. This tends to provide, overall and

> over time, a better level of optimization than doing a point in time

> optimization.

>

> I do accept that it is difficult for many Oracle DBAs to believe that the

> software can do a better job by itself and without intervention, however

 the


> TPC benchmarks would appear to support this viewpoint.

>

> ------------------------------------------

> BP Margolin

> Please reply only to the newsgroups.

> When posting, inclusion of SQL (CREATE TABLE ..., INSERT ..., etc.) which

> can be cut and pasted into Query Analyzer is appreciated.

>

>