Oracle VS SQL Server - Which is best to back end ?

I guess that this has probably been discussed before, but not in my lifetime
on this group, so I'd appreciate any views that the group have as VB
Developers.
I've been asked to make a comparison between Oracle / SQLS for a
specification we're writing for a system which is too great for Access,
(poor network infrastructure on site). So the solution is for a
client/server system.
Point to note: The volumes of data will be too great for Access, but
probably at the lower end of the scale for a true client/server back end
database.
The company contracted to support IT at the firm, will only support Oracle
back-ends, and will not hear of SQL Server being installed. The main client
however will listen to any argument for the use SQLS with VB.
I would prefer to use SQL Server, as I always feel more at home with
Microsoft products (Technet support, big on-line communities), by my
knowledge of any comparison with Oracle is nil.
I would appreciate any of your views regarding this dilemma.
Many Thanks
Alex Stevens, England
Alex,
IMHO, the IT service firm is correct. Ease of installation, setup, and
documentation is a minor consideration compared to factors regarding real
database applications.
First, SQL*Server 7 only runs on NT Server. NT Server itself is not
sufficiently stable or reliable for an enterprise application. It is
sufficient for non-critical, departmental apps (yeah, i've hear all of the
hype about it too!)
Second, SQL*Server does not provide the same level of security and recovery
as Oracle.
Third, scalability, compatibility, and expandability are much better with
Oracle.
Perhaps you should listen to the rationale of the company retained to
support the systems. They may have lived through some experiences which
lead them to the position they hold. I agree with them!
Alex Stevens <alex@.matrixinfotech.co.uk> wrote in message
news:RO3t5.6084$pi.30098@.NewsReader...
> I guess that this has probably been discussed before, but not in my
lifetime
> on this group, so I'd appreciate any views that the group have as VB
> Developers.
> I've been asked to make a comparison between Oracle / SQLS for a
> specification we're writing for a system which is too great for Access,
> (poor network infrastructure on site). So the solution is for a
> client/server system.
> Point to note: The volumes of data will be too great for Access, but
> probably at the lower end of the scale for a true client/server back end
> database.
> The company contracted to support IT at the firm, will only support Oracle
> back-ends, and will not hear of SQL Server being installed. The main
client
> however will listen to any argument for the use SQLS with VB.
> I would prefer to use SQL Server, as I always feel more at home with
> Microsoft products (Technet support, big on-line communities), by my
> knowledge of any comparison with Oracle is nil.
> I would appreciate any of your views regarding this dilemma.
> Many Thanks
> Alex Stevens, England
>
>
>
|||Steve Long wrote in message <8ukm0m$c88$1@.bob.news.rcn.net>...

>yes
Yes, I thought you would say that. But what are they ?
|||Alex Stevens wrote:

> I've been asked to make a comparison between Oracle / SQLS for a
> specification we're writing for a system which is too great for Access,
> (poor network infrastructure on site). So the solution is for a
> client/server system.
If you have a poor network, moving to a client/server model
will only make you suffer. But you are correct, this is a flame
bait type of question. So you can expect to get biggoted responses
like the clowns who claimed MS SQL Server was more expensive than
Oracle or that Oracle had a great developer environment.

> The company contracted to support IT at the firm, will only support Oracle
> back-ends, and will not hear of SQL Server being installed. The main client
> however will listen to any argument for the use SQLS with VB.
I'm not sure why you posted to a Sybase newsgroup then, but I
would consider finding another outsourcer. Since when isn't the
customer always right?

> I would prefer to use SQL Server, as I always feel more at home with
> Microsoft products (Technet support, big on-line communities), by my
> knowledge of any comparison with Oracle is nil.
For a smallish system, look at either mySQL or Sybase Adaptive
Server Anywhere (ASA). The other database systems you're considering
(MS SQL Server, Oracle and possibly Sybase ASE) may be too large
for your needs.
-am
|||Steve Long wrote in message <8qtr70$ln6$1@.bob.news.rcn.net>...

>Second, SQL*Server does not provide the same level of security and recovery
>as Oracle.
Could you please tell me what did you mean here ?
Does ORACLE have any advantages in security and durability of
MSSQL or Sybase ASE ?
|||Michael D. Long wrote:
> When the customer is a newbie who doesn't have a clue...
Or the outsourcer hires graduates who don't have a
clue. I recently had some fun experiences teaching
CSC* how to do their job.

> Sorry, I just couldn't resist. But seriously,
> not all management companies rake it in on
> an hourly basis. If the outfit won a contract
> based on a fixed bid, then they can't afford
> to waste resources on technologies outside
> the scope of their contract.
Don't know about your neck of the woods, but down
under, EDS, IBM, CSC et al. have a reputation for
sniffing around for project jobs to charge extra
for - so that they can have their cake and eat it
too.
-am
*CSC = Completely Stupid Cretins
IBM = Idiots, Boofheads & Morons
EDS = Extra Dopes Supplied
|||When the customer is a newbie who doesn't
have a clue...
Sorry, I just couldn't resist. But seriously,
not all management companies rake it in on
an hourly basis. If the outfit won a contract
based on a fixed bid, then they can't afford
to waste resources on technologies outside
the scope of their contract.
Michael D. Long
http://extremedna.homestead.com
"Anthony Mandic" <am@._lumina.com.au> wrote in message
news:39B5CDEE.B86093EB@._lumina.com.au...
> Alex Stevens wrote:
> Since when isn't the customer always right?
|||Uri,
That result was not recognised by the TPC council. It was declared
illegal. IBM have since smashed those figures with a legal test.
"Uri Klil-Hahoresh" <uri.klilhahoresh@.compaq.com> wrote in message
news:8p2qd9$nle$1@.mailint03.im.hou.compaq.com...
> Maybe you don't need such configuration, but the following article (I must
> say it comes from winNT magazine...) can give you some point of view of
the[vbcol=seagreen]
> ongoing development of SQLserver:
>
> 2. ========== HOT OFF THE PRESS ==========
> (contributed by Paul Thurrott, thurrott@.win2000mag.com)
> * SQL SERVER SHATTERS PERFORMANCE RECORDS
> One detail that came out of Bill Gates' keynote address during the
> Windows 2000 (Win2K) launch was the announcement that Microsoft's
> upcoming SQL Server 2000 product had just set the world record in the
> industry-standard TPC-C benchmark, which measures database server
> performance. SQL Server 2000 set the new record on a 12-system Compaq
> configuration running Win2K.
> Previous to the Win2K/SQL Server 2000 tandem, the record holder was
> Oracle 8i running on a 96-processor clustered Solaris system, which
> scored 135,815 tpmC. Using SQL Server 2000, Windows 2000 Advanced
> Server (Win2K AS), and 12 8-processor Compaq ProLiant servers, Compaq
> and Microsoft scored 227,079 tpmC, which is a whopping 68 percent
> improvement over the prior record. This score represents a volume 575
> times larger than the combined transaction volumes of Amazon.com and
> eBay. For more information, go to
> http://www.wininformant.com/display.asp?ID=2582.
>
> Best regards
> Uri, ISRAEL
> "Alex Stevens" <alex@.matrixinfotech.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:RO3t5.6084$pi.30098@.NewsReader...
> lifetime
Oracle
> client
>
|||Alex Stevens wrote the quoted material below:
" I've been asked to make a comparison between Oracle / SQLS for a
" specification we're writing for a system which is too great for Access,
" (poor network infrastructure on site).
My experience has been that Oracle is expensive, hard to install, and its
stored procedures are limited, thus creating a heavy transaction load. I
find SQL Server a snap to install and configure, the T-SQL language is
robust and allows some incredible procedures. Now that I think of it, SQL
Server is probably one of the cheapest databases on the market, thus
making it a good value for the money when combined with its strengths.
Plus, I have a hard time trusting a company which sole passion in life is
being the "anti-Microsoft". Sorry, show me what you're doing that's
positive, not what you're doing against Microsoft. Also, the original
release of Oracle 8 was a buggy mess.
(C) 2000 "There's more to life than news, weather, and sports"
David Kaye -- slogan of KGO-TV, creator of "happy talk" news
|||I think Oracle and SQL Server have their respective benefits.
What matters is which one of these is most applicable to our on going
projects.
Oracle has been on the market for a lot longer than SQL S and probably
richer in terms of tackling conventional developer problems.
[vbcol=seagreen]
probably at the lower end of the scale for a true client/server back end
database.
Oracle costs a lot more than SQL Server and scales up higher too.
If the volumn of your data is at the lower end of the scale then SQL is
sufficient (and cheaper <g>)
When developing applications on a Microsoft Platform, as a VB Developer, I
feel very comfortable staying with Microsoft Technologies.
SQL Server should be relativly easier to install and maintain.
One advantage of Oracle is that it can run on platforms other than NT. like
Unix for example.
But since we have not done any development on Unix, we do not see it as a
delibrating point for us.
However it may not be in your case and you might want to consider this
point.
A lot of people I know who have worked on both Oracle and SQL Server tell me
that PL SQL is much more powerful that T SQL.
Oracle clusters better than SQL S. but can anyone point out an equalent of
DTS and OLAP in Oracle ?
Surly the more advanced and experienced developer can list out a lot more
detailed differences.
My best bet would be stick with what I know best and the tools in which I
can give my best output.
Feeling comfortable developing in a particular language or tool is a
significant factor.
Mujahid Wazir
IQura Technologies Pvt. Ltd