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

> Look at the fine print of the offer. There's a number of very debateable
> issues, not the least of which is that Oracle can impose conditions
> (hardware and consulting services) that the challenger must completely
 bear
> the cost of, and that can easily exceed a million dollars ... but the one
> that is most interesting is: even if Oracle loses the challenge, and has
 to
> pay a million dollars, the customer can not publicize the fact.

Well I have not read it at all, I confess. It's always sounded to me like a very bold challenge.

> To my ears, sure doesn't sound like Oracle has a lot of confidence in its
> own product. Instead it sounds like Oracle Marketing is very adept at
> creating impressive but hollow challenges.

Agree and disagree... I agree because of all the conditions you say Oracle puts on the tests; but I disaagreee becaus eof these reasons: Oracle uses only Oracle within its corporate systems; I work with Oracle every day and know first hand how good it is; and the comparison states three times faster, not simply "faster". I think if Oracle tunes the DB and the results are a DB that is thrice as fast, then it's still a good deal.

> Bottom line, as I stated originally: both Oracle and SQL Server are
> excellent products, and both are enterprise level databases. Preferences
 for
> one or the other, tend to boil down to familiarity with one or the other.

Yes, of course. It would be very hard to be an absolute master at both, unless they were both very simple (ie: MS Access vs dBase).

Overall I think we agree, though! Received on Thu Mar 29 2001 - 20:32:45 CST