Click here to monitor SSC
SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 
        
Home       Members    Calendar    Who's On


Add to briefcase

SQL Server Vs Oracle Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Sunday, August 31, 2008 8:18 PM


SSC-Enthusiastic

SSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-Enthusiastic

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Sunday, April 15, 2012 7:06 AM
Points: 122, Visits: 205
Team,



Considering am having some data in DB2 and I need to migrate those data into the new system.



Am having around 30 million records with archive 30 million records... so totally 60 million records needs to be stored in my database.



We are expecting 10 million new records... Whether SQL Server is apt for this scenario... Or Oracle can be used for this scenario... Need justification for the same.



I am very much concern with the performance of my database too ...............................



If SQL Server is good which version of SQL Server is best...2005 or 2008.... Need justification for the same.



Please help me..



Regards,

Venkatesan Prabu .J

http://venkattechnicalblog.blogspot.com/


Thanks and Regards,
Venkatesan Prabu, :P
My Blog:

http://venkattechnicalblog.blogspot.com/
Post #561824
Posted Sunday, August 31, 2008 11:53 PM


SSC-Forever

SSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-Forever

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 7:43 AM
Points: 40,438, Visits: 36,894
60 million rows is not beyond SQL's capabilities. I've had more than that in a single table. The design needs to be done carefully, but it is possible.

Are you expecting 10 million more rows per hour, per day, per month?



Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server 2008, MVP
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability

We walk in the dark places no others will enter
We stand on the bridge and no one may pass

Post #561859
Posted Monday, September 1, 2008 3:28 AM
SSCrazy

SSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazy

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, November 14, 2014 8:26 AM
Points: 2,894, Visits: 3,278
My advise is to use whatever your organisation has the most skills in.

The first preference is to leave it in DB2, as moving it means you are paying money to stand still. If you absolutely have to move it, what other skills does your organisation have. If you are mainly a MySQL installation, put it into MySQL. If you are mainly a SQL Server installation, put it into SQL Server. Likewise for Oracle, Sybase, etc. Any enterprise-quality database that your organisation is skilled in will do the job. It is more important to leverage existing skills than introduce a new product.

Do not be tempted to put the data into departmental-class database systems such as Access, unless you do not mind loosing some of the data.

If you do decide on SQL Server, then use SQL Server 2008. Even though it has only recently been released it has many improvements over SQL Server 2005, and any serious bugs will have been fixed before you have completed your migration to it.


Original author: SQL Server FineBuild 1-click install and best practice configuration of SQL Server 2014, 2012, 2008 R2, 2008 and 2005. 18 October 2014: now over 31,000 downloads.
Disclaimer: All information provided is a personal opinion that may not match reality.
Concept: "Pizza Apartheid" - the discrimination that separates those who earn enough in one day to buy a pizza if they want one, from those who can not.
Post #561913
Posted Tuesday, September 2, 2008 6:58 AM
Grasshopper

GrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopper

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 7:37 AM
Points: 15, Visits: 143
Be sure to check licensing costs, too. Many org's find Oracle's license structure prohibitive.
Post #562356
Posted Tuesday, September 2, 2008 7:03 AM


SSCrazy

SSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazy

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 3:07 PM
Points: 2,049, Visits: 3,592
Agreed with all the comments. SQL Server 2005 / 2008 are both very capable of handling that and more, the question really has to be "what do you have skills in supporting?" because ultimately there are areas which need more attention when we start looking at larger data sets. So, assess your company profile, technology direction and then make your decision.

If you don't have any deep skills in any of the major DB platforms then SQL Server will offer the easiest learning curve for the most part and will offer the lowest managability price point (an often neglected consideration).



David

@SQLTentmaker
SQL Tentmaker
“He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose” - Jim Elliot
Post #562363
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase

Permissions Expand / Collapse