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 9:50 AM


SSC-Dedicated

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

Group: Administrators
Last Login: Yesterday @ 3:11 PM
Points: 31,368, Visits: 15,837
What's "won"? Not sure what that means. Faster, larger, price/performance?

I think they both have their places. I prefer SQL Server since it's cheaper, more complete with features, and fits my needs. Not that Oracle wouldn't, but at 1/2 to 1/4 the cost, why bother?







Follow me on Twitter: @way0utwest

Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
Post #637324
Posted Thursday, January 15, 2009 9:57 AM


SSCrazy

SSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazy

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 8:02 AM
Points: 2,049, Visits: 3,596
Steve Jones - Editor (1/15/2009)
What's "won"? Not sure what that means. Faster, larger, price/performance?


Sorry, good question. Yes, faster, and better price performance especially since we were using partitioning which is included in Enterprise Edition of SS but is quite an expensive add-on with Oracle. The "run off" was primarily focused on which would perform better (faster) on like hardware.


David

@SQLTentmaker
SQL Tentmaker
“He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose” - Jim Elliot
Post #637336
Posted Thursday, January 15, 2009 1:28 PM
Valued Member

Valued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued Member

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, October 8, 2012 2:57 AM
Points: 66, Visits: 433
Define best. For me best is Oracle because I've used it for more than 10 years and just a little bit looked in SQL Server. Oracle for me would most probably be faster, more reliable and usable for me because I know how to configure, develop and use various its features. It isn't so with SQL Server so the reason why.
The first thing is to understand that each DBMS is different and what is better for me, won't be better for you and what is better for project X, won't be better for project Y.
It is OK to compare them, but there is one big problem - there are very few people really knowing both of them and really understanding that even if there is not direct mapping for feature X in other DBMS, there are various another ways how to accomplish that.
So ultimate seeking for which is better is useless at least to my mind.


Gints Plivna
http://www.gplivna.eu
Post #637551
Posted Thursday, January 15, 2009 1:50 PM


SSCrazy

SSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazy

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 8:02 AM
Points: 2,049, Visits: 3,596
All good points and to further what Gints is saying, you do have to take into consideration what skills are prevalent in your organization and / or your community. Where I am at there is not an abundance of SQL Server but there is a ton of Oracle so, you can find Oracle DBA's by the dozen.

Thanks for that insight!


David

@SQLTentmaker
SQL Tentmaker
“He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose” - Jim Elliot
Post #637564
Posted Thursday, January 15, 2009 6:04 PM


SSC-Dedicated

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

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 10:42 AM
Points: 35,769, Visits: 32,438
gints.plivna (1/15/2009)
Define best.


Not a problem... Which can someone write the highest performance code in that correctly does the job in the shortest time for the least amount of money with the least amount of maintenance? ;)

The first thing is to understand that each DBMS is different and what is better for me, won't be better for you and what is better for project X, won't be better for project Y.


Heh... Agreed... See definition of "Define best" above.

It is OK to compare them, but there is one big problem - there are very few people really knowing both of them...


Now THAT would be interesting. Any of you folks out there good at both? If you are, I for one sure would like to hear from you on which you think is best and why. Seriously...

So ultimate seeking for which is better is useless at least to my mind.


I do understand what you mean here... which is best for the PROJECT? See "Define Best" above. :)


--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 #637703
Posted Friday, January 16, 2009 3:02 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
It would appear that I have made a bit of a stir with this question. Sorry all,
I think I’ll just stick at my MS SQL. Should be ready to sit my first exam soon. :O)
Post #637825
Posted Friday, January 16, 2009 3:25 AM


SSChasing Mays

SSChasing MaysSSChasing MaysSSChasing MaysSSChasing MaysSSChasing MaysSSChasing MaysSSChasing MaysSSChasing Mays

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, December 12, 2014 12:19 AM
Points: 647, Visits: 1,311
Like Gints / Jeff said, only a veteran in both Oracle and MS SQL can give a defenite (and objective) answer based on their hands own experience. Even then people tend to develop a personal liking for one over the other based on how much natural they are in it.

Better we apply theory of relativity here also?;)


-- Roshan Joe
*******************************************
There are two types of DBAs. Those who has skills and those who have permissions
Jeff Moden -Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
Custom cleanup script for backups
Post #637834
Posted Friday, January 16, 2009 8:40 AM
SSCertifiable

SSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiable

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, November 21, 2014 6:34 AM
Points: 6,259, Visits: 2,031
There are *many* things Oracle can do that SQL Server can't. So much so, that Oracle is normally being refused because of its too many knobs....

Now that being said for a very large percentage of of the applications out there many of those knobs are NOT required and SQL Server excels at that. But for those where fine tuning to the T is critical Oracle is *the* way to go.

If
1. We forget about money (note normally we don't ;) ) assume money is not a problem (nice, isn't it).
2. We Forget about knowlege of the DBA; assume we have infinite knowlege about both products.
and we want a task done as best as it can be done probably the solution will end up in Oracle's hand.

There are applications like "military", "space", "nuclear power controls", "Medical Applications", etc in which money is a factor that goes AFTER precision,reliability,...etc.

Granted, once again, these are NOT typical applications just something for you to think about.

On the other hand for a very large number of common scenarios, SQL Server provides what we need and is very convenient in terms of manageability and programmability.

Just my $0.02




* Noel
Post #638168
Posted Friday, January 16, 2009 8:43 AM


SSChampion

SSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampion

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, December 18, 2014 9:58 AM
Points: 13,872, Visits: 9,600
noeld (1/16/2009)
There are *many* things Oracle can do that SQL Server can't. So much so, that Oracle is normally being refused because of its too many knobs....

Now that being said for a very large percentage of of the applications out there many of those knobs are NOT required and SQL Server excels at that. But for those where fine tuning to the T is critical Oracle is *the* way to go.

If
1. We forget about money (note normally we don't ;) ) assume money is not a problem (nice, isn't it).
2. We Forget about knowlege of the DBA; assume we have infinite knowlege about both products.
and we want a task done as best as it can be done probably the solution will end up in Oracle's hand.

There are applications like "military", "space", "nuclear power controls", "Medical Applications", etc in which money is a factor that goes AFTER precision,reliability,...etc.

Granted, once again, these are NOT typical applications just something for you to think about.

On the other hand for a very large number of common scenarios, SQL Server provides what we need and is very convenient in terms of manageability and programmability.

Just my $0.02



Actually, for mission-critical reliability, a number of military projects have been switching from Oracle to a database product called Cache. Major pain to work with, but it apparently is much more robust.


- 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 #638176
Posted Friday, January 16, 2009 8:58 AM


Right there with Babe

Right there with BabeRight there with BabeRight there with BabeRight there with BabeRight there with BabeRight there with BabeRight there with BabeRight there with Babe

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, November 24, 2014 4:29 PM
Points: 752, Visits: 920
My opinion is definitely slanted since I earn my living with SQL Server and have only used Oracle in an academic environment, so I have vastly more experience with SQL Server than Oracle.

But, having experience with both, I will join the majority and say "It depends". In the vast majority of cases, I would take SQL Server in a heart beat. It is easier to use, easier to administer, and has vastly better tools that come with it. I would even happily toss the tools that come with SQL Server against the best tools you can buy for Oracle in most projects. It is also easier to write applications for. (As a disclaimer again, I have more experience in SQL Server, but I have used and written code for both).

While I would say SQL Server would win in most cases, there are 3 areas where I would pick Oracle:
1. Cross platform development since Oracle is available with very few differences on both Windows and Unix.
2. Scaling out. SQL Server has very limited ability to scale out right now, where Oracle is very robust there. I'm hoping SQL Server will catch up soon.
3. If it is necessary to maintain legacy applications already written in Oracle, (or legacy employees already trained in Oracle).


---
Timothy A Wiseman
SQL Blog: http://timothyawiseman.wordpress.com/
Post #638197
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase ««12345»»»

Permissions Expand / Collapse