Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Why SQLServer ?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2

    Unanswered: Why SQLServer ?

    I have a choice of working with either SQLServer or Oracle within my company. I need to advise them which way to go. I need to support a couple of hundred users in a mixed workload environment (OLTP, Batch & Reporting)
    The O/S will be Windows 2003 Server. My understanding is that Oracle is the better database technically but SQLServer is cheaper and easier to integrate with other MS technologies. My company will most likely buy into whatever technology will deliver value for money but also be secure and be able to scale.
    Any views gratefully received.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    12,592
    Provided Answers: 1
    Quote Originally Posted by thedatabaseman
    My understanding is that Oracle is the better database technically...
    ...define "better technically". SQL Server has MUCH lower administrative overhead, which translates into lower cost of ownership. It has MUCH better integrated development tools (Oracle's Java-based tools suck hard wind) which translates into cheaper and faster development. And SQL Server handles terrabyte-sized databases.

    I develop in SQL Server whenever I can.
    I developer in Oracle whenever I have too. Usually because it is stipulated by a client who has bought into Oracle's marketing mythology.
    If it's not practically useful, then it's practically useless.

    blindman
    www.chess.com: "sqlblindman"
    www.LobsterShot.blogspot.com

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Jersey
    Posts
    10,322

    Talking

    Come now...you just learned Oracle, what, a year ago?

    Oracle has some very powerful features......and it's a lot like the mainframe DB2 database...it is bullet proof

    So....

    Use SQL Server

    Brett
    8-)

    It's a Great Day for America everybody!

    dbforums Yak CorralRadio 'Rita
    dbForums Member List
    I'm Good Once as I ever was

    The physical order of data in a database has no meaning.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    12,592
    Provided Answers: 1
    Bulletproof? From what I've seen, it tends to self destruct. Bulletproof like an M1 tank without an oil pan.
    If it's not practically useful, then it's practically useless.

    blindman
    www.chess.com: "sqlblindman"
    www.LobsterShot.blogspot.com

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2
    SQL Server is cheaper and just as competent as Oracle. Keep in mind ORACLE dba's and developers will generally cost your company more money than SQL Server dba's and developers. You will be able to develop applications just as easily with Oracle as you can SQL Server.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    12,592
    Provided Answers: 1
    Quote Originally Posted by drglaser
    You will be able to develop applications just as easily with Oracle as you can SQL Server.
    Tell that to our .Net developers, who despise Oracle. They don't even refer to it as "Oracle" in conversations. It's always "F'ing Oracle".
    If it's not practically useful, then it's practically useless.

    blindman
    www.chess.com: "sqlblindman"
    www.LobsterShot.blogspot.com

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    on the wrong server
    Posts
    8,835
    Provided Answers: 6
    it's fcking oracle arund here too. except we have 8i for the one client who uses oracle as the backend. oracle does'nt even support 8i anymore. I start swearing incessantly everytime I can not use an UPDATE FROM and I have to use a cursor. other little things like that bite me in the ass everytime I have to write some code for it. i have not bothered "learning it" because it is a small part of what I do and I just hack\google my way through it everytime I have to deal with it.
    “If one brings so much courage to this world the world has to kill them or break them, so of course it kills them. The world breaks every one and afterward many are strong at the broken places. But those that will not break it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these you can be sure it will kill you too but there will be no special hurry.” Earnest Hemingway, A Farewell To Arms.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    88
    Quote Originally Posted by thedatabaseman
    ...The O/S will be Windows 2003 Server...
    This is a fairly important point. I've worked with Oracle, SQL Server and Sybase for many years, and specialise in migrating database technologies.
    Looking at the database alone, I would always recommend SQL Server for all the reasons outlined by others (price, performance, TCO, ease of use, as well as the free add-ons DTS, Analysis and Reporting services)

    Most client's reservations about this choice tend to center around two areas:
    1) The windows O/S itself...
    2) Connectivity into the database from non-windows platforms.

    If neither of these is an issue, its really a no-brainer.

    Bill

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    72
    I was always an Oracle snob, I thought I had a real man's database, 7.3, then 8i. We still run 8i. This winter, I was given a SQL Server database, which I viewed as MS's ripoff/knockoff of the mighty Oracle.

    I have to say that I am nothing but impressed with SQL Server.


    2) Connectivity into the database from non-windows platforms.
    I wouldn't think this would be an issue, is it? I thought a database, is a database, is a database to a client application. I suppose there could be some data driver issues.

    Carl

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    on the wrong server
    Posts
    8,835
    Provided Answers: 6
    I think he is talking about windows authentication (more secure) vs sql authentication.
    “If one brings so much courage to this world the world has to kill them or break them, so of course it kills them. The world breaks every one and afterward many are strong at the broken places. But those that will not break it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these you can be sure it will kill you too but there will be no special hurry.” Earnest Hemingway, A Farewell To Arms.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    1,245
    I suspect that this thread could rapidly descend into a rant/rave about one's favorite product/system. My $.02:

    I remember transitioning from MS Access to SQL 7.0 in 1998/1999. I remember being frustrated by some of SQL's features. I also remember buying a single book (SAM's SQL 7.0 DBA Survival Guide, the updated version of which I still recommend). After reading that one volume, I was able to:

    1. Configure SQL Agent Mail to monitor events/alerts/jobs
    2. Configure backup and recovery to be able to recover the database to a point in time
    3. Confidently manage the operation of the database 24/7 for our business (we're talking about within a 6 month period of time)

    I should note that I had one free course from an MS partner during this timeframe during which I was given a brief (3 hour) demo of installing SQL Server.

    Fast forward to 2004 when I took my new position and inherited several SQL 2000 boxes, 12 Oracle 8i servers and have since installed 4 9i boxes and a 10g box. I have 9 Oracle tomes lying around my desk (4 of them are Sybex self-study guides). I have taken (and passed) the required exams for OCA certification. I have taken a 1 week course on Oracle 9iR2 DBA fundamentals II (all about backup and recovery). I am currently studying my tail off to prep for the OCP for 9i. And I am just beginning to feel a little less anxious about managing Oracle. I am FAR from comfortable with it, but I don't lose quite as much sleep as I used to.

    I think Oracle is a strong product. I think it is far more capable in certain areas than SQL 2000 (dunno about SQL 2005). Especially in the area of table partitioning, data file management, tablespace management, recovery operations and schema management, Oracle 9i has some huge advantages.

    But if you're a small to medium to moderately large shop with tight budgets and tough deadlines and you want to get the most out of your people (administrators, developers and analysts), then I have to side with SQL Server. Yes, I am biased. Yes, I might have a different opinion if I had started with Oracle instead of SQL Server. Yes, I might have a different opinion if I were a *Nix guru. But if you are already committed to the the Windows platform, then the decision becomes really easy...

    My $.02. It's worth what you paid for it.

    Regards,

    hmscott


    BTW, I've been waiting for a chance to bite on a thread like this for about a week now. I've been struggling with implementing OEM in our test environment. It's been a stuggle, but it's one tool that is beginning to turn my opinion on Oracle.
    Have you hugged your backup today?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •