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 12345»»»

SQL or Oracle Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Thursday, January 15, 2009 6:05 AM


SSC Journeyman

SSC JourneymanSSC JourneymanSSC JourneymanSSC JourneymanSSC JourneymanSSC JourneymanSSC JourneymanSSC Journeyman

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, May 19, 2014 9:19 AM
Points: 81, Visits: 285
Having only ever done MS SQL I don’t know a great deal about Oracle.
There are a few Oracle DBAs where I work and I'm sick of them telling me its better.

I Wanted to ask you guys which in your personal opinion is a batter database?
Based on performance, usability, reliability, support based on same hardware spec.

versions - Oracle 11g or sql 2k5

thanks in advance..
Post #637018
Posted Thursday, January 15, 2009 6:36 AM


SSCoach

SSCoachSSCoachSSCoachSSCoachSSCoachSSCoachSSCoachSSCoachSSCoachSSCoachSSCoach

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 4:14 PM
Points: 15,725, Visits: 28,130
You know, I don't think it really matters. Each has strengths and each has weaknesses. By and large, I prefer SQL Server and that's where I make my money, but I can acknowledge some of the things that Oracle does well. The market is big enough for both.

----------------------------------------------------
"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood..." Theodore Roosevelt
The Scary DBA
Author of: SQL Server 2012 Query Performance Tuning
SQL Server 2008 Query Performance Tuning Distilled
and
SQL Server Execution Plans

Product Evangelist for Red Gate Software
Post #637050
Posted Thursday, January 15, 2009 6:40 AM
SSCrazy

SSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazy

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 5:07 AM
Points: 2,732, Visits: 23,078
It's all going to be opinion, but I use both - a lot, so I will give you my opinion.

They both have strengths. Oracle is really developer-friendly. It is designed to loop through records. This makes the typical application developer way of thinking work pretty well - do something, move to the next record, repeat. MSSQL is designed to be very fast in set-based operations and is pretty bad at the whole looping thing (hence avoiding cursors). Performance-wise, if you compare operations that use each systems strengths, they currently benchmark about the same. MSSQL 2008 inched out Oracle a little, but Oracle will overtake again, I'm sure.

Reliability - they are also pretty much the same now. Although the Oracle/UNIX installs have been traditionally much more reliable, since SQL 2005 and Windows Server 2003, MS has gotten pretty close to the same reliability. I think the biggest problem with most MS shops is less-experienced resources tend to manage the servers. If you have a good UNIX admin and a good MS Server admin, they are both pretty reliable. One of the bigger reliability issues on the MS end is untrained resources tend to manage them because the tools and user-interfaces are so good. You cannot blame the software for people mis-using it. If you have a good server admin and a good dba (as you almost always have with Oracle) MSSQL is very reliable.

Cost - this is really where MSSQL shines. Now, I don't advocate selecting software specifically because it is cheaper, but the total cost of ownership of MSSQL is lower no matter how you slice it. The initial licensing costs are comparable for the database engine and OS licensing. With MSSQL you also get SSIS, SSAS, and SSRS essentially for "free" with the product as well as a tool set (Management Studio). Oracle solutions are available, but certainly not free. The other big cost for Oracle is in resources. For some reason, Oracle DBA's and developers are more expensive. I think this is reflective of shotty tools, but for whatever reason, they add more cost.

Scalability - This is really where Oracle edges out MSSQL right now. Oracle scales up and out pretty well. MSSQL scales up (bigger, faster server) but scaling out (multiple servers load-balancing) is not really there. At this point, single-server scale out (lots of processors and memory in one server) has gotten cheap, so I don't know if this is that big of a deal in most situations.

Now, as far as which is better - that will always depend on the situation. However, if anyone tells you they have a definitive reason why one or the other is "better" they probably don't know what they are talking about or are simply trying to sell you something.
Post #637052
Posted Thursday, January 15, 2009 7:20 AM


Ten Centuries

Ten CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 1:51 AM
Points: 1,262, Visits: 3,422
Also I asked this question... and don't forget that now we have available the SQL Server 2008! ...vs Oracle 11g!

As I search in the Internet both technologies are very nice and strong to handle toooo many data!

one example is for the database with large data such as 300 TB database just for test the Oracle was more successful than SQL Server 2005!

So, on the other hand the Japan database engineers and architects has set up the Clustering with SQL Server 2005 for transfer 2 000 000 (million) data per second ( this is very big performance)!

Little bit abstract info here but these info coming from all the people who works with Oracle and SQL Server!

Definitively, I cannot find the answer yet which is the best!!!


============================================================
SELECT YOUR PROBLEM FROM SSC.com WHERE PROBLEM DESCRIPTION =
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Best+Practices/61537/
Post #637100
Posted Thursday, January 15, 2009 7:27 AM


SSCoach

SSCoachSSCoachSSCoachSSCoachSSCoachSSCoachSSCoachSSCoachSSCoachSSCoachSSCoach

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, June 27, 2014 12:43 PM
Points: 15,444, Visits: 9,596
I think it's pretty much the same question as "which is better, red or blue?"

- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread

"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
Post #637108
Posted Thursday, January 15, 2009 7:32 AM
SSCrazy

SSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazy

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 5:07 AM
Points: 2,732, Visits: 23,078
GSquared (1/15/2009)
I think it's pretty much the same question as "which is better, red or blue?"


red, obviously. What's wrong with you?
Post #637116
Posted Thursday, January 15, 2009 7:42 AM


SSCrazy

SSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazy

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, August 22, 2014 12:19 PM
Points: 2,107, Visits: 3,582
Have to agree with Michael on this and appreciate all the points he makes. It has been a few years since I have had to work with Oracle but they certainly both have their merits. The one major caution that I will throw out is that for some reason there is that industry thought, especially in upper management, that Oracle is the only one that can play in the large enterprises and that simply isn't true. Sadly many will buy Oracle and think that they have a solution to their performance issues only to find out that it really is the app that stinks, not the dbms. :P

As to the scale out, that is something that I am looking forward to improving with the future of SQL Server. Pretty cool presentation at PASS about some of that. Not sure if that is up anywhere for viewing. However, I do believe that there is some misconception here as well. Check out the following links on this;

http://blogs.msdn.com/sqlcat/archive/2008/06/12/sql-server-scale-out.aspx
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/plan/ssmsam.mspx - This is a bit old but it is by the late Jim Gray which means that the information is extremely solid.


David

@SQLTentmaker
SQL Tentmaker
“He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose” - Jim Elliot
Post #637123
Posted Thursday, January 15, 2009 7:47 AM


SSCrazy

SSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazy

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 10:05 AM
Points: 2,897, Visits: 5,981
Michael Earl (1/15/2009)
GSquared (1/15/2009)
I think it's pretty much the same question as "which is better, red or blue?"


red, obviously. What's wrong with you?


Purple?

as for Oracle/MSSQL like others have said it's all what you need. Look at the strengths and weaknesses of both products. For me it's easy, I've never once worked with a database where I needed to scale out, so MSSQL has always fit the bill in both initial price and TCO. additionally I make my living from MS Technologies so I am somewhat biased, but I believe the MS tools are FAR superior to the ones from Oracle. Not that there aren't 3rd party tools for each which improve them...

-Luke.


To help us help you read this

For better help with performance problems please read this
Post #637130
Posted Thursday, January 15, 2009 8:19 AM


SSC-Dedicated

SSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-Dedicated

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 5:22 PM
Points: 37,061, Visits: 31,624
I disagree with most of the thoughts on this thread... I've used both and, for what I classify as "casual users" and ease of use, I think that SQL Server is head and shoulders above Oracle.

There is no doubt in my mind that it's sometimes a matter of what you cut your teeth on and that Oracle has a lot more functionality, but Oracle has much stricter rules that can be pretty frustrating at times. For example, Oracle cannot return a result set to an app from a simple stored procedure that does a SELECT... you have to write a reference cursor to do that.

And, with all of it's power, Oracle STILL only allows 30 character object names. That requires the creation of a full set of naming conventions for abbreviations or the developers will have an absolute field day making up their own and using it only when they feel like it.

But, like anything else, I suppose "it depends"... there's a very easy way to find out, though... have a race. Describe a complex problem that requires the creation of serveral tables, a user interface (keep that part simple), and several chunks of functionality. Then, let the Oracle ninjas and the SQL Server ninjas in your company have an all out, all night death march race. To give the folks incentive on the race, give them any two or three days off that they choose.

If it's a tie, SQL Server wins not only because of the initial cost, but because of the cost of ownership.

Of course, that's just my opinion... Heh... I can see thise thread turning into a real flame war if we're not careful.


--Jeff Moden
"RBAR is pronounced "ree-bar" and is a "Modenism" for "Row-By-Agonizing-Row".

First step towards the paradigm shift of writing Set Based code:
Stop thinking about what you want to do to a row... think, instead, of what you want to do to a column."

(play on words) "Just because you CAN do something in T-SQL, doesn't mean you SHOULDN'T." --22 Aug 2013

Helpful Links:
How to post code problems
How to post performance problems
Post #637196
Posted Thursday, January 15, 2009 8:35 AM


SSCrazy

SSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazy

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, August 22, 2014 12:19 PM
Points: 2,107, Visits: 3,582
We actually did what you describe Jeff, we had a "run off" with Oracle 10G and SQL Server 2005 in a data warehouse conversion test. Both 64-Bit on Itanium (this was a few years ago). Great fun. Go ahead, ask....

Yes, of course SQL Server 2005 won. No, it wasn't that we had gimpy Oracle DBA's either. We had some really good ones (multiples for one production instance too :)).


David

@SQLTentmaker
SQL Tentmaker
“He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose” - Jim Elliot
Post #637227
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase 12345»»»

Permissions Expand / Collapse