| Author |
Topic |
|
shahidns
Starting Member
10 Posts |
 Posted - 2003-05-28 : 01:55:52
|
| Hi all,I am looking for a document or link that will explain in details the benefits of SQL Server over Oracle. I am not looking for functional differences between the too, as I know Oracle will lead in that. What I need is something that will tell me the feasibility, stability, compatibility, etc. My company is too pro Oracle and I am looking forward to convincing the higher management that SQL Server is as efficient as Oracle. I am sure this topic may have been discussed in the past, but I am really sorry I must have missed it.Thanks to all in advance.Shahid. |
|
|
Andraax
Aged Yak Warrior
790 Posts |
Posted - 2003-05-28 : 02:36:04
|
| We've had some flame-wars over this yes :)Anyway...There are severe pricing differences:[url]http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluation/compare/pricecomparison.asp[/url]Myth and reality:[url]http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluation/compare/mythandreality.asp[/url]Is it fast?[url]http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_perf_results.asp[/url]Edited by - andraax on 05/28/2003 02:36:21 |
 |
|
|
jasper_smith
SQL Server MVP & SQLTeam MVY
846 Posts |
Posted - 2003-05-28 : 02:37:15
|
| These are probably a decent place to start[url]http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluation/compare/oracle.asp[/url][url]http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluation/compare/default.asp[/url]HTHJasper Smith0x73656c6563742027546f6f206d7563682074696d65206f6e20796f75722068616e6473203f27 |
|
|
|
shahidns
Starting Member
10 Posts |
Posted - 2003-05-28 : 03:01:40
|
| Thank you so much for the links. I will have a look at them and hope they can convince my management. They are always hard to crack.SHahid. |
|
|
|
X002548
Not Just a Number
15586 Posts |
Posted - 2003-05-28 : 09:27:01
|
quote:
I will have a look at them and hope they can convince my management.
Haven't been doing this too long have you?Best to pick your battles...if they are too pro Oracle, you'll need a US backed military strike to accomodate the regim change.Hey listen, at least you won't have to deal with Access projects that have gone wild and become enormous SQL Pigs...BIG MOOBrett8-) |
|
|
|
mohdowais
Sheikh of Yak Knowledge
1456 Posts |
Posted - 2003-05-28 : 10:17:09
|
The Oracle consultants seem to have a real strangle-hold on most large companies in the UAE. You are going in the right direction by at least looking for some documentation and comparing Oracle VS Sql Server (or any other RDBMS, for that matter). It seems that most companies go for Oracle just for the name, they cant stand to be associated with anything less. Well, that's the case in the UAE at least. Oracle is doing a absolutely great PR job  OS |
|
|
|
robvolk
Most Valuable Yak
15732 Posts |
Posted - 2003-05-28 : 22:05:35
|
quote:
Oracle is doing a absolutely great PR job
Yeah, as long as you're not the California State Government.  Just in case anyone there gets really pushy about buying Oracle, ask them how much money Oracle is "contributing" to the company and if they're forcing you to buy 3 licenses for every person. Then laugh and say you were only joking. It should turn at least one or two people bone-white though, good for a laugh on your part. |
|
|
|
X002548
Not Just a Number
15586 Posts |
Posted - 2003-05-28 : 22:11:07
|
| Yo Rob, are the licenses so different?either way its mucho $$ per cpu. No?Brett8-) |
|
|
|
robvolk
Most Valuable Yak
15732 Posts |
Posted - 2003-05-28 : 23:07:33
|
| In any case, Oracle licenses are always a lot more expensive than SQL Server licenses. And while I'll admit that Oracle does have a performance edge in a number of areas, based on my experience, technically they're not the fastest anymore, and you can get equivalent or better performance from SQL Server for a lower price than Oracle. |
|
|
|
Merkin
Funky Drop Bear Fearing SQL Dude!
4970 Posts |
Posted - 2003-05-28 : 23:33:54
|
| Oracle doesn't have a site like this one.Case Closed!Damian |
|
|
|
X002548
Not Just a Number
15586 Posts |
Posted - 2003-05-29 : 09:43:12
|
| Put a lock on it!!!!!Brett8-) |
|
|
|
eyechart
Master Smack Fu Yak Hacker
3575 Posts |
Posted - 2003-05-31 : 00:58:06
|
Having used both environments extensively for the last 5 years or so, here are some of my observations. BTW, I look at these thing mostly from a DBA perspective, and not so much as a developer.SQL Server Pros1. Slightly less expensive, about 15-20% or so on a per cpu basis (unlimited use licensing). Adding in support makes the calculation far more difficult because microsoft really doesn't support their product in the same manner that oracle does.btw, that price comparison on the microsoft site is very misleading. Nobody who purchases Oracle pays the list price. 50-60% discounts are commonplace. In fact, if you don't get a 50% discount on an Oracle product, you should probably be shot.2. Good to great performance on typical databases (not VLDB though)3. Very good implentation of SQL. T-SQL in my opinion, is far more intuitive than Oracle PL/SQL. PL/SQL has a bolted on feel for some of the new features. Coding stored procedures in T-SQL is far easier.4. Nice integration with MSDE product, Oracle has no equivalent. (Personal Oracle is really no different than enterprise edition, it has the same installation footprint)5. NO need for bloated oracle client installation. Just frequent MDAC updates ;)6. Great integration with GUI tools (except for source control)7. Integrates better with other microsoft products (IIS, .NET, etc). Would probably be a better choice for a backend to an IIS website than Oracle (of course this would depend on the size and activity).8. DTS. ORacle has no equivalent of DTS bundled with their database. The power of DTS makes SQL server an incredible value.9. SQL Server/MSDE has a standard installation methodology that can be automated with tools like SMS and the like. Oracle uses a java based installer called the Oracle Universal INstaller (nice for cross platform environments, same installer on every platform). However, pushing out a client install to every desktop is made far more complex than I think is necessary because of it. the OUI cannot be scripted with tools like SMS, doing so is possible (with snapshots, etc) but is unsupported by Oracle and is not guaranteed to work.10. SQL server is less complicated and less intimidating to use initially. The time from setup and install to actually doing real productive work is far shorter than for Oracle. Especially if you are coming from a windows background. Oracle has it's roots in the command line interface (unix world) and this is intimidating for someone not at home in that environment.11. SQL server integrates with your AD or NT Domain environment seamlessly. Oracle integration with LDAP directories is difficult to implement is far from seamless.12. Moving databases from one server to another is simpler in SQL server. To my knowledge, there is nothing in Oracle like the SQL Server attach/detach stored procs, although Oracle does have export/import. This flexibility is most likely due to the fact that a lot of system information is included in each database, making them more portable. Oracle stores this info solely in the system tablespace. SQL Server Cons1. Poor support compared to Oracle. Metalink kicks the sh!t out of technet/MS phone support. The downside to metalink is that you need to spend money on a support account to access it. You won't have access to their knowledgbase without this. This makes getting your feet wet with oracle less than optimal.2. SQL server has a wide breadth of tools and functionality, however, it lacks the depth of Oracle. Example areas include replication and materialized views. Although you can create these in SQL server (as in Oracle), oracle offers far more control and is far more robust in their implentation. There are many other examples, I am merely listing two.3. the CBO in sql server is undocumented. Although the Oracle CBO is not well documented, there is enough to get a decent idea of what the hell the optimizer is thinking. 4. Along the same lines, the basic goings on under the hood of SQL server are not well documented and for the most part are not well known or understood by most SQL Server DBAs. Diagrams like the following one, are basically hammered into every Oracle DBAs skull(You may need to create a free account first at technet.oracle.com to view the graphic below)  Knowing how things work under the hood is important when you have to troubleshoot a performance problem, or design a database, or purchase the hardware for the server.5. Performance tuning in oracle is better, especially when combined with Oracle Enterprise Manager. Maybe this is a result of better documentation regarding the CBO and Oracle performance tuning in general.6. Poor performance in VLDB. The locking methodology used in SQL server is not as advanced as Oracles. Oracle can therefore handle more concurrent users.7. Poor recovery model in SQL server. A full article could discuss the differences, but the model used in SQL server is crap. No support for mirroring online transaction logs in SQL server. Also the transaction log is only usable once the data has been backed up. That in my opinion is a major achilles heel. What if you have corruption in you trans log and cannot back it up? The oracle implentation is incredibly elegant in it's design, and when implemented properly is nearly bulletproof.8. ON the trivial side, formatting output in SQLplus (ORacle) is more robust than the cast and convert functions available in Query analyzer.9. SQL server is not cross platform, you are relegated to a wintel platform.10. SQL server has no equivalent to the oracle import/export tools. These are incredibly useful and powerful tools, and now that I think about it, mostly negate the lack of attach/detach in oracle.11. Many SQL references, both online and in printed books, are mere regurgitations of SQL Server books online. There are some truly outstanding SQL Server books (the guru books for example) and websites (this one for example), but there are many more books and websites that would fall into that "outstanding" category for Oracle.OK, I'll end my comparision with that. SQL server is a great product that fills most every database need. However, in my opinion, Oracle is just a little bit better. My advice to you is embrace this if your company decides to bring Oracle in house. Don't expend too much energy trying to dissuade your bosses solely using microsoft 'ammunition' for arguments. You might be viewed as trouble and not onboard.Another tack you can take is to be enthusiastic about working with Oracle. You will definitely not be wasting your time learning a new RDBMS, learning is never a bad thing. You will, in fact, become a better DBA or developer. Being able to handle two different environments is better than limiting yourself to a single platform. In fact, you may have heard that Oracle DBAs make more money than SQL server DBAs ;)Lastly, if you do any persuading, you may want your team to look into Oracle real application clusters (RAC). Not only is this great technology, it is a very nice addition to the resume. But this is really only something to consider for apps that need five nines uptime, plus the cost of implementation nearly doubles.-ecEdited by - eyechart on 05/31/2003 02:34:21 |
|
|
|
mohdowais
Sheikh of Yak Knowledge
1456 Posts |
Posted - 2003-05-31 : 03:09:01
|
Great first post eyechart! But there is still no OracleTeam.com!  Owais |
|
|
|
nr
SQLTeam MVY
12543 Posts |
Posted - 2003-05-31 : 16:50:54
|
| [3. the CBO in sql server is undocumented. Although the Oracle CBO is not well documented, there is enough to get a decent idea of what the hell the optimizer is thinking.]The execution plans give a fair idea about most things - but it's not as simple as it used to be unfortunately.[4. Along the same lines, the basic goings on under the hood of SQL server ... are not well known or understood by most SQL Server DBAs.]Agree - but I think this is a lot due to[6. Great integration with GUI tools]and[10. SQL server is less complicated and less intimidating to use initially. The time from setup and install to actually doing real productive work is far shorter... ]A lot of people think they can get a system running and that's all there is to it.This is probably to sql servers detriment as often when things go wrong the product gets blamed rather than the implementation.I used to think that sql server was a lot more efficient as I could always rewrite Oracle systems to work much faster in sql server. Now I've worked with Oracle a bit I think it may be because a lot of Oracle (and sql server) devlopers don't know about relational processing.Good post.==========================================Cursors are useful if you don't know sql.DTS can be used in a similar way.Beer is not cold and it isn't fizzy.Edited by - nr on 05/31/2003 18:10:01 |
|
|
|
jsmith8858
Dr. Cross Join
7423 Posts |
Posted - 2003-05-31 : 17:58:13
|
| Eyechart -- GREAT post. Looking forward to hearing more from you. Thanks for taking the time.- Jeff |
|
|
|
X002548
Not Just a Number
15586 Posts |
Posted - 2003-06-01 : 18:28:58
|
| Where the hell was I for this...GREAT STUFF...You know what though...If you don't know what your'e doingIT JUST DOESN'T MATTER...Great post "eyechart", hope you stick around...Brett8-)Edited by - x002548 on 06/02/2003 09:08:23 |
|
|
|
Andraax
Aged Yak Warrior
790 Posts |
Posted - 2003-06-02 : 02:24:36
|
| Eyechart, that was the first realistic and objective post I have seen comparing the two products. Most people just flame away when the topic comes up. Great arguments and points!Just one comment::The list prices for Oracle are misleading.Well, they are the only prices available for comparison I'm afraid. And MS also give discounts on large installations of SQL Server.The only way to get a fair comparison is to bring in prices from the companies on the same install.Edited by - andraax on 06/02/2003 02:29:09 |
|
|
|
eyechart
Master Smack Fu Yak Hacker
3575 Posts |
Posted - 2003-06-04 : 02:23:08
|
| thanks for the feedback, glad to see that my ramblings were of some value..-ec |
|
|
|
shahidns
Starting Member
10 Posts |
Posted - 2003-06-04 : 05:18:31
|
Thank you eyechart, that was a great post. I am sure it will go a long way in helping me .I started off my database carrier with Oracle and have been working with it for the past 5 years. Last year I was introduced to SQL server(while supporting Oracle ) and after doing some study I thought maybe the company could save some money in licences by transfering small databases over to SQL Server. We have about 350+ databases running under Oracle(mostly Unix env) and about 8 databases in SQL Server. So now you can understand why I am all that upset .Shahid. |
|
|
|
mohdowais
Sheikh of Yak Knowledge
1456 Posts |
Posted - 2003-06-04 : 05:25:34
|
quote:
We have about 350+ databases running under Oracle(mostly Unix env)
Whoa!! That's a *LOT* of databases...what company do you work for? (if you dont have a gag-order, that is )Owais |
|
|
|
X002548
Not Just a Number
15586 Posts |
Posted - 2003-06-04 : 09:02:11
|
quote:
We have about 350+ databases running under Oracle(mostly Unix env) and about 8 databases in SQL Server.
Really?A shop, dedicated to Oracle/Unix, finds room in their heart for NT/W2000?Could be a test bed?And how may I ask, is your configuration for 350 databases? How many Instance per Server, what's the avergae size of your database, what's the Max size, how many concurrent users, what are the front end interfaces....ect..Real curious...Brett8-) |
|
|
|
Next Page
|
Benefits of Sql Server 2000 over Oracle