Board index » delphi » SQL Server vs Oracle

SQL Server vs Oracle

A client likes my application but wants it converted from InterBase to
either SQL Server or Oracle as their IT department have no in-house
knowledge of InterBase.

Does anyone have experience of both? What are the pros and cons of each?

Dave

 

Re:SQL Server vs Oracle


Personally I prefer Oracle.  The SQL is more flexible and Delphi and Oracle
work well together.  Price wise though, SQLServer is hard to beat.

--
Michael Glatz
mgl...@caiso.com

Quote
Dave Albiston wrote in message <01be0ef0$970cf020$LocalHost@laptop>...
>A client likes my application but wants it converted from InterBase to
>either SQL Server or Oracle as their IT department have no in-house
>knowledge of InterBase.

>Does anyone have experience of both? What are the pros and cons of each?

>Dave

Re:SQL Server vs Oracle


I have been using both Oracle and SQL Server for a couple of years with
Delphi C/S.  I think it largely depends upon the host DB server.  With Unix,
SQL Server is not even a choice.  With NT, I prefer SQL Server on hardware
that is not completely over the top in performance.  I think SQL Server is
faster on NT on small to medium sized servers.

On nice thing about Oracle that SQL lacks is constraints.  With SQL you are
going to deal with more trigger code.

I seem to have fewer problems using Delphi with SQL Server, but that may
just be me.  You have to pay better attention to character case with Oracle.

Bill

Quote
Dave Albiston wrote in message <01be0ef0$970cf020$LocalHost@laptop>...
>A client likes my application but wants it converted from InterBase to
>either SQL Server or Oracle as their IT department have no in-house
>knowledge of InterBase.

>Does anyone have experience of both? What are the pros and cons of each?

>Dave

Re:SQL Server vs Oracle


MSSQL had serious restrictions like single active statement per connection (
client library level ) and  even in MSSQL7 it is still there. Page locking
is yet another serious problem but in MSSQL 7 claims to do row level
locking. Who knows if it's true. More critical is the dead locks. So, if you
are really looking for scalability and robustness I recommend using ORACLE
7.3.x. Soon or later ORACLE 8 also will have a better quality.

T.Ramesh.

Quote
Dave Albiston wrote:
> A client likes my application but wants it converted from InterBase to
> either SQL Server or Oracle as their IT department have no in-house
> knowledge of InterBase.

> Does anyone have experience of both? What are the pros and cons of each?

> Dave

Re:SQL Server vs Oracle


MSSQL (especially v.7) is MUCH easier to administer, and more stable on NT.
I havn't used v.7 long enough to determine if the deadlock problems that
plagued 6.5 have been resolved. The new Enterprise Manager is a thing of
beauty... something I don't often say about MS products.

Oracle (I use v.8 now) is faster and more powerful, but has some NT
stability problems (which were probably due to our DBA fumbling the
configuration, but seem to be resolved for now). Also, the Objects option is
immature and basically useless at this stage... in fact it imposses some
serious limitations. If you go with Oracle, be sure to get the DOA database
components (Direct Oracle Access) from
http://www.allroundautomations.nl/doa.html.  They are well worth the
investment. Borland's new Oracle 8 compatibility in the BDE is handy, but
the BDE is dog-slow compared to DOA, and such a pain to maintain on the
Clients.

Hope this helps.

Quote
Dave Albiston wrote in message <01be0ef0$970cf020$LocalHost@laptop>...
>A client likes my application but wants it converted from InterBase to
>either SQL Server or Oracle as their IT department have no in-house
>knowledge of InterBase.

>Does anyone have experience of both? What are the pros and cons of each?

>Dave

Re:SQL Server vs Oracle


Quote
Dave Albiston wrote:
> A client likes my application but wants it converted from InterBase to
> either SQL Server or Oracle as their IT department have no in-house
> knowledge of InterBase.
> Does anyone have experience of both? What are the pros and cons of each?

Do they really need a lot of knowledge ?  IB usually runs pretty well
without a lot of administration.
Also, the "locking model" of other databases may require a lot of
changes/tuning of the application.

Aage J.

Re:SQL Server vs Oracle


i bet on oracle, scalable from ,single user personal oracle for single
developer to 700 mio row data ware houses on massiv parallel systems !
also some real features:
- free development licence for linux (V8.05 see
http://technet.oracle.com)
- very scalable (runs on nearly ANY platform even NT and linux !)
- fast (if you configure initxxx.ora and don't use the standard one)
- reliable (yes it is !)
- good to excellent delphi support for oracle (bde and direct oracle
access from www.allroundautomations.nl )
- nice procedural server side language (pl/sql)

Yours

On 13 Nov 1998 10:28:56 GMT, "Dave Albiston"

Quote
<dalbis...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>A client likes my application but wants it converted from InterBase to
>either SQL Server or Oracle as their IT department have no in-house
>knowledge of InterBase.

>Does anyone have experience of both? What are the pros and cons of each?

>Dave

Christian Kaas, c.k...@odn.de
Quote
>Software-, Projektrealisierung u. Beratung
>640kB ought to be enough memory ! - Bill Gates 1981

Re:SQL Server vs Oracle


Don't move from Interbase to MSSQL.  Too many problems.  I have had problems
with database stability, corruption and horrible problems between BDE and
MSSQL.

Go to Oracle.  The interface is much better, stable and supported.  Although
of course Oracle more expensive, but you pay's your money!

Pa...@drs.co.uk

Quote
Dave Albiston wrote in message <01be0ef0$970cf020$LocalHost@laptop>...
>A client likes my application but wants it converted from InterBase to
>either SQL Server or Oracle as their IT department have no in-house
>knowledge of InterBase.

>Does anyone have experience of both? What are the pros and cons of each?

>Dave

Re:SQL Server vs Oracle


Another thing:  Have a look at the newsgroup.  How many problems are there
with SQL/Server compared to Oracle, in comparison with the number of
installed DB's of each!

For once MS have got it wrong!

Paul

Quote
Paul Bartlett wrote in message <72tocs$2s...@forums.borland.com>...
>Don't move from Interbase to MSSQL.  Too many problems.  I have had
problems
>with database stability, corruption and horrible problems between BDE and
>MSSQL.

>Go to Oracle.  The interface is much better, stable and supported.
Although
>of course Oracle more expensive, but you pay's your money!

>Pa...@drs.co.uk
>Dave Albiston wrote in message <01be0ef0$970cf020$LocalHost@laptop>...
>>A client likes my application but wants it converted from InterBase to
>>either SQL Server or Oracle as their IT department have no in-house
>>knowledge of InterBase.

>>Does anyone have experience of both? What are the pros and cons of each?

>>Dave

Re:SQL Server vs Oracle


In article <01be0ef0$970cf020$LocalHost@laptop>, Dave Albiston
<dalbis...@compuserve.com> writes
Quote
>A client likes my application but wants it converted from InterBase to
>either SQL Server or Oracle as their IT department have no in-house
>knowledge of InterBase.

>Does anyone have experience of both? What are the pros and cons of each?

I have a D3 C/S app that works with SQL Server, Oracle and Access (via
ODBC). I had to make many compromises in physical database design to
work around limitations in Oracle, such as:
1. Only one LONG VARCHAR (memo) per table
2. No way to search a LONG VARCHAR (important for Human Resource apps)
3. Case-sensitivity is a pain (for optimised searching, finding names
etc)
4. Non ANSI92-compliant SQL, especially for outer joins
5. Comparatively weak set of scalar functions, though DECODE() is handy
6. Connectivity (SQL*Net) is very twitchy about versions.
7. BDE Conflicts - hangs if you evaluate expressions in de{*word*81}.
Otherwise OK I suppose...
--
Tony Lavelle
Hyrax Computer Systems Ltd, UK
(remove .spamtrap from return address before replying)

Other Threads