There is an article here which might help many of you.
Cheers.
Printable View
There is an article here which might help many of you.
Cheers.
FoxPro shouldn't even be an option. :rolleyes:
:D
I just retyped an article from magazine. I should not be editing it and besides it had its days.
Whoa... paranormal thread here. It's stuck at the top! :eek:
I have ask mods to keep it on top so it might help others. I don't mind it removed either. Just tell me why and I will die happy. :D
Two years ago, I had started/learning FoxPro for a project I was working on. I'll agree with what you said about it's language. It was cumbersome, and difficult to learn, considering how comfortable I am with SQL. However, I didn't find it to be fast at all. Perhaps that's just my experience... I haven't seen any reviews of people saying that it's fast! (Other than yours)Quote:
The FoxPro engine has a well-deserved reputation for speed.
why donnt people go for oracle ?????
It's too large. Corporations could go for it. But people.... I can't see why they should.
There comes personal Oracle
Actually, then MySQL would be much better (unless you really like triggers and stored procs).
But considering that we're talking about Microsoft databases... neither Oracle nor MySQL qualify here :afrog:
It's my review. I have taken that article from magazine and if you disagree then it's nothing I can do. :)Quote:
Originally posted by wrack
I have ask mods to keep it on top so it might help others. I don't mind it removed either. Just tell me why and I will die happy. :D
I couldn't find a comparision review on it and only found MS one so I put it there. I don't know much about oracle though and if you consider price then it is same as SQL Server. :)Quote:
Originally posted by sw_is_great
why donnt people go for oracle ?????
They would be qualified if I have found an article on it but I couldn't so ... :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by mendhak
Actually, then MySQL would be much better (unless you really like triggers and stored procs).
But considering that we're talking about Microsoft databases... neither Oracle nor MySQL qualify here :afrog:
NExt version is going to support this. It's been a bit slow in comming due to some fundamental differences in just how to implement it.Quote:
Originally posted by mendhak
Actually, then MySQL would be much better (unless you really like triggers and stored procs).
There are some in one camp that think SPs and Triggers are a part of the core operating of a DMS, while others don't want the bloat and potential for longer execution times that come with it and want it as an add-on module type things (these are those to build their queries right in the app and pass it through.)
But I digest.
I reckon stored procedures and triggers are fantastic.
I see SPs and Triggers sort of like inheritence. They're nice, but not very useful for *me*.
I'm waiting for the next release of MySQL too. I absolutely love it because
a) It's got great handling capacity as compared to any other "home" db
b) It's not as large as those other "enterprise" dbs!
wrack:
Oracle is $40K. SQL Server is $20K.
If you include all the development tools, Oracle's price bloats up like a pregnant woman on bon-bons. And SQL Server remains at $20K. :)
Wrong. You haven't seen all the SQL Database and after certain number of processors and size u need to spend $50 K for the license. :DQuote:
Originally posted by mendhak
wrack:
Oracle is $40K. SQL Server is $20K.
If you include all the development tools, Oracle's price bloats up like a pregnant woman on bon-bons. And SQL Server remains at $20K. :) [/B]
<--- doesn't use multiple processors!Quote:
Originally posted by wrack
Wrong. You haven't seen all the SQL Database and after certain number of processors and size u need to spend $50 K for the license. :D
Compare the prices for 1 processor each, and their standard packages.
Right?
Oracle is just the best......
SQL Server is the best. Higher price doesn't mean that oracle is best. :p
Quote:
Originally posted by wrack
SQL Server is the best. Higher price doesn't mean that oracle is best. :p
:thumb:
Absolutely true. It's as if comparing MS-Access and MySQL and declaring MS-Access to be better because it costs money.
To be honest been visiting different clients for the company I work for and they have a huge databases and all of the clients are running SQL Server and none of them are interested in Oracle. Hell one company's IT manager thought that Oracle is a programming language. :rolleyes:
Because its clunky... Even the personal edition...Quote:
why donnt people go for oracle ?????
Yes, they are alpha testing stored procedures in MySQL 4.1 and sould be public by 5.0
I personally love MySQL and so do alot of large companies. Its fast, and gets the job done. And it's a much better deal for companies of all sizes who don't want to spend the money on a large DB storage solution. Look at the bench marks and see for yourself.
Not to favour any company but MS user interface are usually very good except the foxpro one. :D
Well thats cause there are generally two types of people: The lazy point and click kind, and the type-it-out get right to it, command line kind. I'm kinda both.
I like both of the user input type but which one I use depends on my mood while I am using it.
For example while I am talking to someone over the phone I just use mouse and that's all. Love it.
Cheers.
Go for Oracle....
Never go for MS ACCESS ---
And pay more money. Oh yeah baby... :rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally posted by sw_is_great
Go for Oracle....
Never go for MS ACCESS ---
Oracle is almost as costly as MS Sql Server.
Let's get into the details, shall we? ;)
Setting up SQL server is much, much easier and Oracle. It also takes less time.
With Oracle, a lot of the features you're looking for are difficult to 'get at.' One example is InterMedia. You're probably aware of this, sw_is_great :D The same thing (indexing) in SQL Server involved a couple of clicks. Heck, everything in SQL server, is a couple of clicks.
That, however, doesn't make it a toy server. If you forget the GUI, and get into Query Analyzer, you'll see it's a true RDBMS server, and as robust as any other.
Speaking of GUI, what do you think of the Oracle GUI? Written in Java I believe, and slower than a pack of snails going uphill. In fact, a pack of snails going uphill could have created a better one :lol: <joke>
Advantages of Oracle? Runs on Unix. As a VB programmer, I have no need for this.
Anyways, you can go through these two links full of propaganda:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluat...are/oracle.asp
http://otn.oracle.com/products/manag...omparison1.pdf (right click, save as... it's a PDF)
At least we can safely agree that SQL Server users and Oracle users will always remain buffs for their own. To each their own, whatever you're good at, is what you should stick to.
But that's just my opinion, which makes it right. :afrog:
sw_is_greatdid, u take an oracle class and decide it was the greatest thing in the world? :rolleyes: :eek: :eek:
As I already said. :p
Quote:
Originally posted by sw_is_great
Oracle is almost as costly as MS Sql Server.
Ya do a class for MCDBA and u will know. :p
Quote:
Originally posted by nkad
sw_is_greatdid, u take an oracle class and decide it was the greatest thing in the world? :rolleyes: :eek: :eek:
-- i am new to this forum but not new in programming and oracle !!!Quote:
sw_is_greatdid, u take an oracle class and decide it was the greatest thing in the world?
i have been working with Oracle for more than 2 years and in an mnc( not making toy programs for my self)...
btw , i have worked with both oracle and sql server --- i think oracle is the best for big applications where u have millions of rowsin tables...
there are some known facts :
. if the db is huge, oracles performance is much better than sql server
. security - oracle is best
. indexing - lots of options in oracle.
ok, its true that handling oracle is little more difficult than sql server but tthat does not mean that sql server is better...
:wave:
Well this topic was originally on what MS database to choose and discussion started on the matter of very very huge enterprise application's usage of database system.
Personally I have also seen huge SQL Server databases and they perform as well as Oracle. I think it's matter of how good can u use it using the best of what each database system has to offer you.
No matter what anything offers if you don't configure and use it properly then it's no use.
Let us drop this endless discussion about which's great. Shall we?
:)
True
:wave:
If you look at the bench marks, Oracle and MySQL preform almost equal in some test, both of which out preform SQL Server. Look at the bench marks
Though I usually like Microsoft products (eg. VB.NET), but I must say Oracle is far more capable and superior to SQL Server in all the way (I worked in both). It is true that SQL Server is much easier to handle, but that does not mean it is better. To compare, you must look into their features and architecture.
For example:
Oracle's transaction handling is more advanced than that of SQL Server's. In multi-user environment, long running transactions are more prone to generate locks in SQL Server than in Oracle.
Oracle's PL/SQL is more powerful than SQL Server's T-SQL.
Oracle's index is more diverse than SQL Server's etc.
The argue never actually ends. The bottom line is that for small & medium size organizations, SQL Server is probably best bet because of its price. However, when dealing with millions-billions of rows, Oracle really shows its excellence. Most of world's largest databases are all in Oracle.
BTW, full fledged Oracle DBAs are usually paid more than SQL Server DBAs. [just look for any job site]. It is because managing an Oracle database is not just "click and select" - it requires lots of operating system and database architecture knowledge as well.
Just my personal views! Not to raise any flame please :-)
I totally agree with sbasak..
This is what I had been saying for long time.
Max of the worlds largest dbs are oracle.
Hi Guys
here is some comparison between the two.Its not to prove that oracle is better or vise versa. It is just a comparison.....
=====================================
Platform comparison
SQL Server 2000 only works on Windows-based platforms, including Windows 9x, Windows NT, Windows 2000 and Windows CE.
In comparison with SQL Server 2000, Oracle 9i Database supports all known platforms, including Windows-based platforms, AIX-Based Systems, Compaq Tru64 UNIX, HP 9000 Series HP-UX, Linux Intel, Sun Solaris and so on.
=====================================
Hardware requirements
To install SQL Server 2000, you should have the Intel or compatible platforms and the following hardware:
Hardware Requirements
Processor Pentium 166 MHz or higher
Memory 32 MB RAM (minimum for Desktop Engine),
64 MB RAM (minimum for all other editions),
128 MB RAM or more recommended
Hard disk space 270 MB (full installation),
250 MB (typical),
95 MB (minimum),
Desktop Engine: 44 MB
Analysis Services: 50 MB minimum and 130 MB typical
English Query: 80 MB
Oracle 9i supports Intel or compatible platforms, AIX-Based Systems, Compaq Tru64 UNIX, HP 9000 Series HP-UX, Linux Intel, Sun Solaris and so on.
To install Oracle 9i under the Intel or compatible platforms, you should have the following hardware:
Hardware Requirements
Processor Pentium 166 MHz or higher
Memory RAM: 128 MB (256 MB recommended)
Virtual Memory: Initial Size 200 MB, Maximum Size 400 MB
Hard disk space 140 MB on the System Drive
plus 4.5 GB for the Oracle Home Drive (FAT)
or 2.8 GB for the Oracle Home Drive (NTFS)
To install Oracle 9i Database under the UNIX Systems, such as AIX-Based Systems, Compaq Tru64 UNIX, HP 9000 Series HP-UX, and Sun Solaris, you should have the following hardware:
Hardware Requirements
Memory A minimum of 512 MB RAM
Swap Space A minimum of 2 x RAM or 400 MB, whichever is greater
Hard disk space 4.5 GB
=================================