Board index » delphi » Oracle Vs SQL Server

Oracle Vs SQL Server

Dear All,
        Can anyone tell me the differences between oracle and SQL server.
Advantages, disadvantages and machine configuration for the same.

Regards
Felix.J

 

Re:Oracle Vs SQL Server


Felix

Quote
>         Can anyone tell me the differences between oracle and SQL server.
> Advantages, disadvantages and machine configuration for the same.

Boy...that's a loaded, open-ended question.  Sure to incite some religious
debate! <g>

SQL Server is a Windows only engine.  It is built and tuned specifically for
that platform and therefore has some advantages if you are working only in
Windows.  That is also its principal disadvantage, as porting to Unix and
other platforms is out of the question unless you change to another DBMS.
Oracle was the very first relational database implementation and has the
largest overall presence collectively on various platforms.

SQL Server handles stored procedures with greater elegance than the current
version of Oracle, esp. when you want a result set instead of parameters out
only.  In my opinion, Oracle does a better job of implementing standard SQL
than SQL Server.  SQL Server is fairly easy to setup and get going...but
that doesn't mean you don't have a lot of decisions to make for tuning, etc.

What are your requirements?  What is important to you?  That would probably
help some commenters here give you more specific pros and cons.  If you are
evaluating engines, don't overlook the smaller players like Interbase.  Some
of them have a lot to offer at a fraction of the price.

Joe

Re:Oracle Vs SQL Server


Hi Moor,
    Thanks for the insight. I'm looking at implementing a Multi-user version
of our current software which is running in MS Access.

I'd want to evaluate both SQL and Oracle and finally settle on one.

These are my priorities :
1. Would like to evaluate their pricing.
2. Would like to evaluate the implementation time and cost.
3. Would like to know the Minimal Machine configuration for implementing the
same.
4. Would like to know about their strengths and drawbacks.

Can you guys also suggest me other options.

Regards
Felix.J

J. M. De Moor <jmdem...@nospamobjectpac.com> wrote in message
news:3b509ff9$1_2@dnews...

Quote
> Felix

> >         Can anyone tell me the differences between oracle and SQL
server.
> > Advantages, disadvantages and machine configuration for the same.

> Boy...that's a loaded, open-ended question.  Sure to incite some religious
> debate! <g>

> SQL Server is a Windows only engine.  It is built and tuned specifically
for
> that platform and therefore has some advantages if you are working only in
> Windows.  That is also its principal disadvantage, as porting to Unix and
> other platforms is out of the question unless you change to another DBMS.
> Oracle was the very first relational database implementation and has the
> largest overall presence collectively on various platforms.

> SQL Server handles stored procedures with greater elegance than the
current
> version of Oracle, esp. when you want a result set instead of parameters
out
> only.  In my opinion, Oracle does a better job of implementing standard
SQL
> than SQL Server.  SQL Server is fairly easy to setup and get going...but
> that doesn't mean you don't have a lot of decisions to make for tuning,
etc.

> What are your requirements?  What is important to you?  That would
probably
> help some commenters here give you more specific pros and cons.  If you
are
> evaluating engines, don't overlook the smaller players like Interbase.
Some
> of them have a lot to offer at a fraction of the price.

> Joe

Re:Oracle Vs SQL Server


On Sat, 14 Jul 2001 17:00:20 +0530, "Felix.J" <fe...@botree.co.in>
wrote:

Quote
>Can anyone tell me the differences between oracle and SQL server.
>Advantages, disadvantages and machine configuration for the same.

Big question - first off, both are full-fledged, fully capable RDBMS
systems.

Oracle:

Pros:
-- multiplatform: runs on various Unix-flavours, Windows, Linux, tons
of other, more {*word*118} hardware
-- closer to the SQL-92 standard (in many ways) than SQLServer
-- slew of add-on tools and extensive third-party tool market

Cons:
-- rather complicated to install
-- almost needs a full-time DBA to pamper all the time, a lot of fine
tuning, tweaking and ongoing maintenance necessary

SQL Server:

Pros:
-- tightly integrates with Windows (security mechanism etc.)
-- fairly nice and powerful GUI tools for admin and installation
-- allows you to create extended stored procedures as DLL's in C++ or
Delphi, to literally extend it beyond any limits
-- administration / keeping it up and running appears to be a lot
easier, many things (like memory allocations etc.) are done
automatically, while Oracle needs manual intervention

Cons:
-- limited to Windows only

As an alternative to either of those two, I'd suggest you also have a
real hard look at Interbase - it's free, open-source, it's just as
capable for up to 25-35 simultaneous users, it's platform independant
(runs on Windows, Linux, some other unix-variants), and it has a very
tight integration with Delphi out of the box (IBExpress).

Marc

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Scheuner                                          Software Engineer
Quest Software Canada                       Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Email: marc.scheu...@quest.com                      http://www.quest.com

Re:Oracle Vs SQL Server


Quote
> Oracle:

> -- rather complicated to install

No meanwhile it is absolutly easy because of their installation procedure  -
But for tuning you may right

Quote
> -- almost needs a full-time DBA to pamper all the time, a lot of fine
> tuning, tweaking and ongoing maintenance necessary

No. I know a lot of oracle databases which runs without any restart since
years. A sql-server not.

Quote
> SQL Server:

> Pros:
> -- allows you to create extended stored procedures as DLL's in C++ or

Oracle has also this features and allows java add on (therefore platform
independent)

Regards
Nicolas

Re:Oracle Vs SQL Server


I'm inclined to agree with Nicholas;  I think the difficulties of
installing and maintaining Oracle are overstated.  It is possible to get
excellent response from an Oracle database with minimal configuration
changes.  If you have multi-terabyte databases distributed across
multiple disks/servers, you're going to have a full-time DBA anyhow.

John PIerce

Re:Oracle Vs SQL Server


Felix

Quote
> 1. Would like to evaluate their pricing.

Oracle has a really stupid pricing structure that makes them easily the most
expensive...reminds me of the IBM mainframe pricing.  I read recently though
that Ellison is finally bailing on that structure so may be they will be
more competitive with 9i.

Quote
> 2. Would like to evaluate the implementation time and cost.

See Marc Scheuner's comments in this thread.  Coming up with an actual time
is difficult.  You are going to have to include migration as part of your
costs...and don't forget training.  Do you have trained DBAs...or at least
capable SQL coders?

Quote
> 3. Would like to know the Minimal Machine configuration for implementing
the
> same.

How big is your application system?  How many users will your database
service?  How many tables and rows do you have in your database?  What are
your *minimal* performance requirements?

Re:Oracle Vs SQL Server


Quote
>SQL Server:

>Cons:

Locking mechanism.

Bye, Rocco.

Re:Oracle Vs SQL Server


What about it?

-Euan

Quote
"Rocco Barbaresco" <rocco_barbare...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:3b53d245.781053@newsgroups.borland.com...
Quote
> >SQL Server:

> >Cons:

> Locking mechanism.

> Bye, Rocco.

Re:Oracle Vs SQL Server


Thanks all.

Hi Moor,

Quote
> How big is your application system?

About 60 Modules.

Quote
> How many users will your database service?

On an average of 6 users.

Quote
> How many tables and rows do you have in your database?

The number of tables in the database is 120 and the transaction tables would
record about 3000 rows on an average.

Quote
> What are your *minimal* performance requirements?

I was asking about the Minimum Machine configuration.

Regards
Felix.J

J. M. De Moor <jmdem...@nospamobjectpac.com> wrote in message
news:3b539f1e$1_1@dnews...

Quote
> Felix

> > 1. Would like to evaluate their pricing.

> Oracle has a really stupid pricing structure that makes them easily the
most
> expensive...reminds me of the IBM mainframe pricing.  I read recently
though
> that Ellison is finally bailing on that structure so may be they will be
> more competitive with 9i.

> > 2. Would like to evaluate the implementation time and cost.

> See Marc Scheuner's comments in this thread.  Coming up with an actual
time
> is difficult.  You are going to have to include migration as part of your
> costs...and don't forget training.  Do you have trained DBAs...or at least
> capable SQL coders?

> > 3. Would like to know the Minimal Machine configuration for implementing
> the
> > same.

> How big is your application system?  How many users will your database
> service?  How many tables and rows do you have in your database?  What are
> your *minimal* performance requirements?

Re:Oracle Vs SQL Server


In MsSql it's quite easy to have a lock (and a deadlock too) if you
use open cursors or if you keep alive transactions. In fact the
locking mechanism is pessimistic.
For example if you open one transaction and update one record any
other can not perform a SELECT * in the table until you commit or
rollback.

HTH, Rocco.

Re:Oracle Vs SQL Server


"J. M. De Moor" wrote:

Quote
> Felix

> > 1. Would like to evaluate their pricing.

> Oracle has a really stupid pricing structure that makes them easily the most
> expensive...reminds me of the IBM mainframe pricing.  I read recently though
> that Ellison is finally bailing on that structure so may be they will be
> more competitive with 9i.

The NT/2000 pricing is reasonable.

John PIerce

Re:Oracle Vs SQL Server


Hi Rocco

Quote
> In MsSql it's quite easy to have a lock (and a deadlock too) if you
> use open cursors or if you keep alive transactions.

On one hand this is a good reason to avoid cursors altogether (besides the
fact that they don't perform well on ANY platform).  :-)

Deadlocks are often the result of transactions that are too long.  If you
need to write long transactions, you might want to hold a shared lock until
you actually need the exclusive lock for updating.  I'm not sure what you
mean by "alive transactions" but you can manage locks somewhat in SQL Server
by using optimizer hints.  WITH (NOLOCK) will release the lock after SELECT.
You also have hints for page- and row-specific locks.

Quote
> In fact the
> locking mechanism is pessimistic.

You can also provide isolation level hints. E.g., READUNCOMMITTED will make
locking "looser."  Many times SQL Server makes the correct choices for you,
but you can override these.  This issue is not unique to SQL Server.

Joe

Re:Oracle Vs SQL Server


Quote
> > What are your *minimal* performance requirements?
> I was asking about the Minimum Machine configuration.

Maybe you should start with some more relevant information:
- SQL server 7 or 2000?
- Windows NT or Windows 2000? Any standards in your company?
- Stand-alone server, multipurpose server, PDC, BDC, Member server?

Basically you can run SQL server 7.0 on a 166 Mhz Pentium, 128 Mb with
acceptable response time in low usage situations (I know we do). We also
have a customer running a 30 user Oracle application on a 233 Mhz 256 Mb
WinNT 4.0 database server, reasonable performance.

You could also start with using MSDE (both a 7 or 2000 version available I
believe) which is royalty free (part of some Microsoft Developer kits) but
has to be managed from something like Access (your message mention you use
Access, no version info etc. provided but I assume some recent version).
MSDE has some built in user-limit (5 I seem to remember) and databse size
limit (some 2 Gb comes to mind) Acces has some built-in migration tools for
migratition to SQL server. I suggest you experiment somewhat with this, I
doubt you can make an informed decision with the questions asked (and hence
the answers provided).

hth,
Martin

Other Threads