Why SQL Server is Better Than Oracle

  • g.britton

    SSChampion

    Points: 13689

    Eric M Russell - Wednesday, October 4, 2017 7:51 AM

    kannan_egd - Wednesday, October 4, 2017 4:08 AM

    Yes, I too agree, but when comes to large volume data handling still SQL server is standing behind oracle and SQL server is not a true enterprise and not suitable for handling large volume of data. The best example is table partitioning SQL server still relays on range but Oracle have multiple choices, even multiple column partitioning is not at all available in SQL server. Ours is a healthcare database and we are using SQL server 2016 enterprise and we recently migrated from 2012 now we are migrating our database to oracle because of this partitioning limitation. we are planning to deal multi state data for our product for this we are looking for list and range wise and multi column partitioning but SQL server is not at all fit for this, many experts came for us to provide suggestions to make architectural changes but it requires lot of resources and may break the functionality so we still looking for composite partitioning it is not at all available in Microsoft and Microsoft has no plan for this feature development.

    Maybe you've already investigated this option, but as far back as SQL Server 2008, we can use a persisted computed column for the partitioning function, and that computed column expression can be based on multiple columns and also supporting a broad range of T-SQL functions.

    https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/t-sql/statements/alter-table-computed-column-definition-transact-sql

    note that, if you use a computed column, trying to use the magic $partition function to prune the search tree may not work (well, afaics, it simply does not work)

    Gerald Britton, MCSE-DP, MVPToronto PASS Chapter[/url]

Viewing post 91 (of 91 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply