Please start any new threads on our new
site at https://forums.sqlteam.com. We've got lots of great SQL Server
experts to answer whatever question you can come up with.
| Author |
Topic |
|
sql777
Constraint Violating Yak Guru
314 Posts |
 Posted - 2007-06-18 : 16:20:03
|
| If there is someone who is intimate with both sqlserver and oracle tell me the main differences between the two?what features are not available in either one? is one better for certain situations over others? |
|
|
tkizer
Almighty SQL Goddess
38200 Posts |
Posted - 2007-06-18 : 16:43:51
|
SQL Server is always better.  Tara Kizerhttp://weblogs.sqlteam.com/tarad/ |
 |
|
|
sql777
Constraint Violating Yak Guru
314 Posts |
Posted - 2007-06-18 : 17:06:14
|
| heh...I forget to add that I don't want any "sqlserver-ego" based answers hehe.I remember watching some video where the presenter mentioned a situation where oracle was better. It had something to do with the fact that oracle can give you the value of a row even if the value changed AFTER you ran your query. It somehow remembers the old value before the updated or something (I could be 100% wrong on this one).Anyhow, just curious if there are any Enterprise level features that Oracle has that SQL Server doesn't or visa versa. |
|
|
|
eyechart
Master Smack Fu Yak Hacker
3575 Posts |
Posted - 2007-06-18 : 17:24:11
|
| I could write an article describing pros/cons of each and which is better at what - but in the end it basically boils down to "it depends" Both Oracle and SQL Server databases are good products and are pretty equal as general-purpose databases.-ec |
|
|
|
eyechart
Master Smack Fu Yak Hacker
3575 Posts |
Posted - 2007-06-18 : 17:33:25
|
| I actually attempted a bit of an oracle/sql comparison my first post here at sqlteam.http://www.sqlteam.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=26552keep in mind that I was comparing sql 2000 to Oracle 9i/10g. Many of the points I made are no longer valid (locking characteristics of SQL server for example) when comparing SQL2K5 and Oracle.-ec |
|
|
|
LoztInSpace
Aged Yak Warrior
940 Posts |
Posted - 2007-06-18 : 22:28:14
|
They both have pros & cons. It's a huge subject not worthy of a few one-line comments but here are a few anyway. I recon Oracle has more features but is harder to administer. Oracle has loads of cool stuff to do with back in time snapshots, it has a much better native language and/or you can use java. Oracle is multi-platform which could be the single defining factor. Oracle's analytic features are great and SQL Server 2005 has supported some of them. Not too sure about the other way round.quote:
I remember watching some video where the presenter mentioned a situation where oracle was better. It had something to do with the fact that oracle can give you the value of a row even if the value changed AFTER you ran your query. It somehow remembers the old value before the updated or something (I could be 100% wrong on this one).
This is the multi-row versioning. It basically gives you the value as at when your transaction started rather than a lock. This gives you much better scalability over SQL Server because there is effectively no such thing as a read lock and no such thing as lock escalation or anything like that. SQL Server introduced this as an option in 2005. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
SQL Server 2005 versus Oracle