InstantForum.NET v2.9.0SQLServerCentralhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/notifications@sqlservercentral.comWed, 19 Jun 2013 17:23:26 GMT20http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic406577-263-1.aspxI go back to 7.3 myself. We only have a few clients left who haven't moved to SQL Server but it is only a matter of time until they do.Tue, 09 Oct 2012 11:42:46 GMTjfogelhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic406577-263-1.aspx[quote][b]jfogel (10/9/2012)[/b][hr]Years ago I was a production DBA for Oracle but these days its all development work. My biggest gripe about Oracle is that getting data out of it is like getting blood from a rock.[/quote]This is about the most accurate statement I have heard about Oracle ever and I have used it ever since the Oracle 7 days, so I know.. Plus, it's a "money" black hole to maintain for most organizations today.:-DTue, 09 Oct 2012 10:59:53 GMTTravisDBAhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic406577-263-1.aspxI have three Kids, one is very active and gets in trouble easily, the other is a very intelligent individual. he only see the world as black or white, finally my little girl, well she is just a girl, analytical, practical can move and adjust where the wind blows. we DBA's and Developers are just like anything a dad. we tend to gravitate toward the easy things of life. I have the opportunity to work with DB2, Oracle, MSSQL, MySQL and yes the master of all Access. I make more money free lancing with access than any other Database. OH No you did say the nesty word Access? yes, Yes I did. Hanndy little Portable and need I say has it's own inteface and be coded just as easy as MSSQL or Oracle or... well you get my point.:w00t:Tue, 09 Oct 2012 10:12:05 GMTlrosaleshttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic406577-263-1.aspxFor the basic operation of an RDBMS they both do what is required. One costs a lot, the other cost ten times that or more. You get what you pay for, right? An expensive database or a really really expensive database. Oracle can do for a small company something SQL Server cannot, it can cause them to go broke. :-):-):-)Tue, 09 Oct 2012 09:41:33 GMTMiles Nealehttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic406577-263-1.aspxMy first exposure to SQL code and a good solid database design was on Informix! I learned a lot about design and good coding practices from that system, but it didn't teach me much about performance.Never worked much in Oracle, but I do remember at my old job helping to set up Oracle as a linked server on SQL Server 2005. Writing SQL queries for it was a major challenge!Tue, 09 Oct 2012 08:48:18 GMTtabinschttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic406577-263-1.aspxSpeaking different SQL dialects is no problem for me, I routinely work with about four of them. But beware that Oracle thinks '' is NULL. It may seem like a small thing, but it's a sneaky little trap.Tue, 09 Oct 2012 07:46:31 GMTEric M Russellhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic406577-263-1.aspxYears ago I was a production DBA for Oracle but these days its all development work. My biggest gripe about Oracle is that getting data out of it is like getting blood from a rock.Tue, 09 Oct 2012 06:53:00 GMTjfogelhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic406577-263-1.aspx[quote][b]rcheneyjr (10/9/2007)[/b][hr]All this talk, and nobody says anything (good or bad) about DB2...One good thing about knowing Oracle and SQL Server (and DB2, mySQL...), there is always work to find somewhere![/quote]I'll be happy to say something nice about DB2 - My first taste of SQL as a language was learning how to do basic commands against DB2 on an IBM Mainframe. Back in the 90's, it was a command line interface run via TSO on a dumb terminal. An online course provided by my employer at the time. Most of the doors in my career since then have been opened by learning SQL on DB2. So, for that I have nothing but good memories of that particular database. And no, I'm not a particular fan of Oracle, either, for one reason - Case Insensitive. Sure, you could code around it, but make just one error capitalizing or not capitalizing a letter, and solving it could be like looking for a needle in a haystack. But in all the times I did use it, when used right it performed well. Most of my career has evolved to using SQL Server, so I tend to stick with what brings home the paycheck.Tue, 09 Oct 2012 06:43:15 GMTBob Razumichhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic406577-263-1.aspxWhy SQL Server is better than Oracle? It isn't even an argument. Oracle is probably 10 years ahead of SQL and I think that says it all.Tue, 09 Oct 2012 06:39:51 GMTrherrera 67295http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic406577-263-1.aspxAll this talk, and nobody says anything (good or bad) about DB2...One good thing about knowing Oracle and SQL Server (and DB2, mySQL...), there is always work to find somewhere!Tue, 09 Oct 2007 19:16:13 GMTrcheneyjrhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic406577-263-1.aspxWe handle some pretty heavy loads, as well, but on the SQL Server side... that is, when folks stop trying to write Oracle code for SQL Server :DMon, 08 Oct 2007 17:21:02 GMTJeff Modenhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic406577-263-1.aspxCertainly in sql server is easier to visualize information, but oracle provides a lot more information to help a dba figure out what went wrong. In my company oracle is used to handle heavy loads (massive data r/w) while sql server is used for applications that require lots of connections/transactions. The working hours here are 24x7 so I must say they both perform very well when properly configured for their specific tasks.;)Mon, 08 Oct 2007 02:12:25 GMThf2010http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic406577-263-1.aspxIt is disingenuous to say SQL Server 2005 is the same as Oracle 8i because Oracle have spent more than 20 billion dollars to compete with Microsoft by buying Microsoft Gold partner in Fulltext, MySQL DRI enabled file system and Hyperion the top Calculus tool. Why MySQL engine gives Oracle an easy way to create Oracle express but I still want a developer edition. There is no fulltext in Oracle, SQL Server from 7.0 comes with improving fulltext. Now some of the things Jeff is talking about are fixed in .NET development because yes you can now create a single table web page without code. But you have to use 9i and above client to use 8i because very strange things happen when you use 8i client to connect to 8i in all versions of .NET. The one I want them to fix like yesterday is new Oracle versions blocking connection to previous versions and you will not know what is causing it if your employer is too cheap to pay for a Metalink account. And 9i problems comes from too many C++ compilers in the root directory one from IBM and another from Oracle. Both products comes with benefits based on business needs because I worked for a company that used Oracle for the backend and used SQL Server for the calculus end of the same application.Fri, 05 Oct 2007 14:32:53 GMTGift Peddiehttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic406577-263-1.aspxOracle can run on UNIX, Main Frame VAX/VMS, IBM OS, Window and SQL Server can only run on window. It is a big deal for some companies when they have amount of transactions and they need to use other operating system instead of Window to handle it.Actually I started as an Oracle developer, it was nice in one way. Every time I needed to change the database, I just had to call the DBA. I did not have to worry about user security and many other things since the DBA would take care of them. Now I am SQL Server developer, my company did not even hire a DBA and I had to do the DBA work myself. Actually I don't know it is good or bad.:exclamationmark:Fri, 05 Oct 2007 14:19:33 GMTLonerhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic406577-263-1.aspx[quote][b]David Russell (10/4/2007)[/b][hr]I know I'm not the brightest spark in the universe but what is the point of reproducing audibly, via the Audio (MP3) click, what is written in the email? I expected more, at least some valid reasons rather than jokey trivialities.[/quote]Heh... I thought the same thing about Oracle... I expected more. ;)The reason for all the jokes is because if you don't joke about it, Oracle will make you cry... :DFri, 05 Oct 2007 11:02:02 GMTJeff Modenhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic406577-263-1.aspx[quote][b]Vladimiro Buda (10/5/2007)[/b][hr]Well, by tha way, how is SQLServer better than Oracle?You say that SQLServer has now some feature that Oracle 8i had in the 2000.Partitioning, Performance,...where SQLServer is better?I think you trying to say that there is no difference between Oracle and MSQL, not that MSSQL is better; anyway I don't think so and if I would like to write something about this topic, I surely will find some interesting to write.[/quote]Try each of the following in both Oracle and just about any version of SQL Server... then, you'll understand why all the Oracle bad mouthing...Start off with updating a table using data in other tables to do the update. Use UPDATE and not the new friendlier MERGE.Write a trigger that [i]isn't [/i]RBAR.Write an audit trigger for a really big table... see if 32k bytes will get you there.Create a table with a table name or column name more than 30 characters. Do the same for stored procedures, triggers and views.Put an "&" in the comments or a string literal and try to run without making any special settings.Write a stored proc to return a result set to a GUI.Write a stored proc that takes named parameters and call it.Try running something like the following for troubleshooting purposes...[b]SELECT Current_TimeStamp[/b]Try printing the results of a stored proc or a set of variables either for reporting purposes or troubleshooting.Drop and create a temporary working table... without committing any data.Truncate a table from within a stored proc.Use the provided documentation to find out about LIKE (or just about anything else).And, that's just the tip of the proverbial ice-berg. :hehe:Fri, 05 Oct 2007 10:55:02 GMTJeff Modenhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic406577-263-1.aspx[quote]It's a JOKE [/quote]No it wasn't... I hate Oracle :DFri, 05 Oct 2007 10:40:24 GMTJeff Modenhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic406577-263-1.aspxSomebody asked why all the jokes and why very little substance.Short answer: This type of comparison [b][i][u]is[/u][/i][/b] a joke.Oracle, MSSQL, and MySQL all do database. They all do it differently, sort of. Each has [b]areas[/b] where they excel and areas where they suck.Fri, 05 Oct 2007 09:50:49 GMTCharles Kincaidhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic406577-263-1.aspxYou don't understand the difference here. Oracle has more functionality. Agreed! But is it a better product? I don't think so. When I was an Oracle Admin, I got called NO LESS than 5x per week off hours. I got called into the office say 5x per month for critical issues. Now these issues were often with new applications, and over time, the problems would get worked out. We would find the hint for the SQL, or the hidden setting in the init.ora (spfile) to enable some functionality that was needed for our situation, but it would take time.We now change our application weekly, and in the past 6 months. I have had only 1 situation that required some minor investigation to solve an issue. My point is that although it isn't flashy it does reliably do what you expect it to do. That is not the case with Oracle, it won't even run the same command the same way from hour to hour. 10g is finally doing statistics changes based upon inserts/updates to data. SQL Server did that in 2000 :) or older. Kind of like a Hyundai and a Ferrari. One is a lot flashier, but one needs a lot more care to keep running.Fri, 05 Oct 2007 07:07:21 GMTBob Faziohttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic406577-263-1.aspxWell, by tha way, how is SQLServer better than Oracle?You say that SQLServer has now some feature that Oracle 8i had in the 2000.Partitioning, Performance,...where SQLServer is better?I think you trying to say that there is no difference between Oracle and MSQL, not that MSSQL is better; anyway I don't think so and if I would like to write something about this topic, I surely will find some interesting to write.Fri, 05 Oct 2007 06:46:19 GMTVladimiro Budahttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic406577-263-1.aspxAnother thing. I just restored 4 databases from production to our test environment. (took all of 2 minutes). In my past life, I would have requested 2 weeks to do that. Granted it would only take me about an hour or two, but still 2 minutes to 2 hours.Fri, 05 Oct 2007 06:44:53 GMTBob Faziohttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic406577-263-1.aspx[quote][b]Vladimiro Buda (10/5/2007)[/b][hr]After reading this editorial (???), I think about unsubscribing me from this site!Says something without justify it, bahhhh[/quote]It's a JOKE :laugh: Let me put it this way. I was an Oracle DBA since the very early 90's, I was a UNIX and if you have ever heard of this (Aegis/Apollo - You win a prize (talk to Steve)) system administrator before that. The ONLY thing that SQL Server hasn't been able to do that Oracle did well was handle a VERY active Heterogeneous environment well (short and long transactions in same database). This was due to the blocking/deadlocking issues associated with 2000 and past releases. Other than that it blew Oracle away. With Snapshot isolation mode in 2005 you get the best of both worlds. If you need it, you use it, if not don't. One time I had a $4 Million Cluster with Oracle 8i Parallel server (which we had upgraded from 8.0). It got so toasted I had to crash the SERVER!!! We had 5 different "Experts" Come in to solve the unexplained issue. FYI the issue was that one of the (at the time) 250 startup parameters default value changed from running queries locally unless specified to run on all nodes to run on all nodes unless specified to run locally. This caused the private network to become saturated and the heartbeat couldn't even be detected during even minor loads. We missed it during testing because simulating 50,000 users working on the system wasn't in the budget :) It was nice being the guy :cool: everyone called in a company with (5000 IT people and 300 DBA's) when it really got bad. But knowing that there are 2 others in a company (with 15 IT and 2 DBA's) that can handle almost any situation is nicer :)Fri, 05 Oct 2007 06:36:23 GMTBob Faziohttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic406577-263-1.aspxAfter reading this editorial (???), I think about unsubscribing me from this site!Says something without justify it, bahhhhFri, 05 Oct 2007 02:13:25 GMTVladimiro Budahttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic406577-263-1.aspxI've been required to use Oracle more and more in the last couple of months... the more I learn about it and the more I use it, the more I hate it :PFri, 05 Oct 2007 01:16:54 GMTJeff Modenhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic406577-263-1.aspxI can't really give an imformed opinion about Oracle, but i did notice a comment about how you could use SQL Server out of the box. I can understand not wanting to have to spend a huge amount setting it up, but having worked at a place where people think it is just a glorified Access and doesn't even have DBA's or anyone administrating it with developers using it badly in lots of different, disperate ways you can go too far in the other direction.Having said that and being a SQL Server developer I have to say i've nothing but praise for SQL Server.Thu, 04 Oct 2007 16:39:46 GMTmatty_p75http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic406577-263-1.aspxOkey Dokey. Well if you want serious. I have 10g Dev Express loaded locally and it works very well. That's about the best I can say about Oracle here.As far the corporation goes we have two major apps, one on SQL Server and one on Oracle. Moving to sql 2005 clustered we noticed an improvement on an already responsive SQK Server system.Our Oracle 9i RAC has been nothing but trouble (it sits on Linux, that's not a comment). We had Oracle people (paid by Oracle type people) here for a month trying to get acceptable performance. They sort of succeeded.We are now dropping the Oracle RAC environment and moving as much as possible off Oracle to SQL Server. Cost and performance based driven.We expect just running Oracle financials on Oracle will give us reasonable performance - and it is an excellent (not cheap) product.Apart from being a DBA with a foot in both puddles I am also (DON'T TELL ANYONE) a developer. I find SQL Server easier to work with but as a developer they are both just datastores with some caveatsWhen I dabbled with VS Enterprise Library Logging I just could not get dates to work. I had to use a trigger to insert the Oracle dates. And yes I tried using ODP .NEt from Oracle to build my own logging sink. Bizarre things like this pop up with Oracle on a regular basis.Elsewhere I have seen Oracle properly implemented with well designed large scale applications and before SQL 2005 I don't think SQL Server could even be in the race. But thiings are changing quickly.Over to you.Thu, 04 Oct 2007 16:10:21 GMTdbuchanhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic406577-263-1.aspx[quote][b]Kristin Echols (10/4/2007)[/b][hr]I have a mixed marriage: I manage a SQL Server team and my husband manages an Oracle team. We have agreed to disagree...for the children's sake.p.s. the new site design and forum software is nice.[/quote]Let me guess - their initials are PL and T, respectively.I'm not sure what the debate about - I just got a notice in my e-mail that the new REALSQL server was going to blow both products away...by Christmas:P. With a name like that - it must be REAL, so I guess it's time to start learning something new. I've already started reformatting all of my SQL servers, so that I'm ready for this new product, which apparently will serve up my data AND my MP3's at the same time....:hehe:Now - if I could just get it to make coffee as well.... I think that would be a major Service Broker enhancement ("I'd like my Volcano dark roast, not now but soon").Thu, 04 Oct 2007 15:01:47 GMTMatt Miller (#4)http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic406577-263-1.aspx[quote][b]jay holovacs (10/4/2007)[/b][hr]When my son got married I went out for drinks with a bunch of his friends.You haven't lived till you get roasted by a bunch half drunk Oracle guys.[/quote]Always fun when you can't tell if you didn't get the joke because it was something arcane, or you're just too damn drunk:)Thu, 04 Oct 2007 14:54:25 GMTMatt Miller (#4)http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic406577-263-1.aspxI have a mixed marriage: I manage a SQL Server team and my husband manages an Oracle team. We have agreed to disagree...for the children's sake.p.s. the new site design and forum software is nice.Thu, 04 Oct 2007 12:58:42 GMTKristin Echolshttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic406577-263-1.aspxI know I'm not the brightest spark in the universe but what is the point of reproducing audibly, via the Audio (MP3) click, what is written in the email? I expected more, at least some valid reasons rather than jokey trivialities.Thu, 04 Oct 2007 12:44:34 GMTDavid Russell-366997http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic406577-263-1.aspxI like both but I do have to say that with enterprise class systems (8CPUs +) the scalability of SQL Server could become a problem. I would love to hear the experiences of others who have seen workloads from 40,000+ concurrent users.From what I’ve seen with these larger systems you have to buy one big supercomputer and make sure to have extra slots for CPUs, memory, and additional fiber cards for scalability. With Oracle you just go the two midrange node RAC route and add one additional machine if you need to scale further.Thu, 04 Oct 2007 12:17:54 GMTRob-406527http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic406577-263-1.aspxOracle secret weapon is VP Jim Melton who is ANSI SQL editor who edited the XML section in ANSI SQL 2006. That got me very worried because for political reasons Microsoft could just wait until the XML people finish the needed Algebra before implementing real XQuery which could be too late for SQL Server 2008. So for XML data intensive Web application you may still need to reach out and touch Data Direct who owns the XQuery url and sells an almost idiot proof albeit expensive tool.Oracle does not sell developer edition of its RDBMS so for now it is like C.J.Date said do data as algebra and ask how is this implemented by Oracle.Thu, 04 Oct 2007 12:11:14 GMTGift Peddiehttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic406577-263-1.aspxOracle's boss is Larry Ellision, he did anything to try to be number one. Oracle is behind Microsoft right now. After he took over Peoplesoft, he just bought Hyperion. In an article I read a while ago in Time or Newsweek magazine, he was arrogant, competitive and rude. I worked with Oracle consultants a lot, when you bought Oracle, you needed to hire Oracle consultant, the damn thing was so complicated that no one knew what to do when they got it from the box. Most of the independent consultants were very nice. But the one who worked at Oracle somehow got Larry's influence - arrogant and rude. Even the Oracle DBAs attitude were different from SQL Server DBAs. They felt they were more superior. Maybe just the Oracle DBAs I met !!!!As far as programming, Oracle SQL is the same as SQL Server SQL - FALSE. PL/SQL = T-SQL - FALSE.Just don't tell the recruiters.Thu, 04 Oct 2007 11:00:45 GMTLonerhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic406577-263-1.aspx[quote][b]Carl Federl (10/4/2007)[/b][hr]Q: How many Oracle DBAs does it take to change a light bulb ?A: Three - it takes three Oracle DBAs to do anything.Q: How many SQL Server DBAs does it take to change a light bulb ?A: None - SQL Server automatically changes light bulbs.[/quote]The new Oracle light bulbs are $100,000 each plus $1,000 for every one who sees the light, and old light bulbs aren't licensed to work with the latest version. If you have 220 volts, instead of 110, it's another $100,000.Thu, 04 Oct 2007 09:39:09 GMTMichael Valentine Joneshttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic406577-263-1.aspx"SQL Server is better than Oracle""Why?""Because""Why Because?""Because it just is"Thu, 04 Oct 2007 09:28:38 GMTrudy - Doctor "X"http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic406577-263-1.aspxLet's get down to it gentleman, I think Oracle sucks but I have learned to like it - sort of. It is more like a living arrangement.In my experience Oracle DBAs make more $mula$. The entry level for Oracle is higher. I am not sure if Oracle did that on purpose.Ah, you have not lived until you set up Oracle Management Server - something that is basically out of the box in MS SQL.At the same time, there are things that are in Oracle that I wish MS SQL had and vice versa.Thu, 04 Oct 2007 09:25:29 GMTFrancisco Lopezhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic406577-263-1.aspxYou comments about being less formal with the people you like, reminded me of a passage from "The Gulag Archipelago" by Solzhenitsyn. In it he stresses that "your friends will argue with you". If he told someone that he was going to do something stupid, like talk back to the guards, his friends were the ones trying to talk him out of it. The guy who was encouraging him, saying "Yea, tell them what you think" might appear to be supportive, but in reality they were definitely NOT his friend.I've been know to play "devil's advocate" with system designs and some people accuse me of arguing too much. I just tell them about Solzhenitsyn and let them know that I'm "very friendly" Nothing solidifies a design like having to defend it against alternatives. Thu, 04 Oct 2007 09:09:32 GMTEd Klein-385786http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic406577-263-1.aspxWhen my son got married I went out for drinks with a bunch of his friends.You haven't lived till you get roasted by a bunch half drunk Oracle guys.Thu, 04 Oct 2007 08:59:15 GMTjay-hhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic406577-263-1.aspx[quote][b]Carl Federl (10/4/2007)[/b][hr]Q: How many Oracle DBAs does it take to change a light bulb ?A: Three - it takes three Oracle DBAs to do anything.Q: How many SQL Server DBAs does it take to change a light bulb ?A: None - SQL Server automatically changes light bulbs.[/quote]Would you mind [b][i][u]not[/u][/i][/b]changing the light bulbs while I'm trying to read?!There is no truth to the following rumors:MySQL is proposing changing WHERE to WHEN to emphasise the "real time" nature of the Falcon engine.Oracle touts it complexity as a new "security" feature.DB2 introduces ROLL OVER for transactions to make the succeed even if there are conflicts.SQL Server introduces SORT OF and KIND OF as extentsions of LIKE to make things more warm and fuzzy.No truth, I tell you. NO TRUTH!!Thu, 04 Oct 2007 08:48:50 GMTCharles Kincaidhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic406577-263-1.aspxOracle *is* user friendly. It's just selective about who its friends are.It's not a bug, SQL just misunderstood me!Thu, 04 Oct 2007 07:42:09 GMTtbredeme