Re: Comparisons of TCA between Oracle and SQL Server

hpuxrac wrote:

> There's a fairly amusing item posted here ...
>
> http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9002689&pageNumber=1
>
> What to me is most amusing is the methodology or lack thereof. It
> looks like the author created some kind of survey and had some set of
> people fill it out. Then he called it a study and attempted to draw
> some conclusions from it.
>
> I guess I am getting old and perhaps am prejudiced by having parents
> that conducted real research at reputable universities.
>

The most interesting graph:

      Study participants reported that on average a database
      administrator could manage more than 30 Microsoft SQL Server
      2005 databases, while Oracle 10g implementations required one
      DBA per 10 databases. On average, the annual cost for
      administration is $2,847 per year per database for Microsoft
      SQL Server 2005 and $10,206 per year per database for Oracle
      10g. That's a savings of more than 350% in annual costs per
      database for the Microsoft platform.

One wonders if the authors understand that the term "database" as used by SQL Server is equivalent to the term "schema" in Oracle. For instance, I only admin one Oracle production database (mostly I'm a developer), but it has over 30 schemas. If we converted to SQLServer, could I claim that I manage 30 "databases" and talk management into creating a full time DBA position? Would that lower our TCA?

Unless I'm reading something wrong, the article's about like saying blueberries are cheaper fruit than watermellons because you get more berries per dollar.

//Walt Received on Fri Sep 22 2006 - 15:06:35 CDT