Choosing the Right Microsoft Database

**wrack** · Nov 30th, 2003, 05:35 PM

There is an article here which might help many of you.

Cheers.

**mendhak** · Nov 30th, 2003, 10:58 PM

FoxPro shouldn't even be an option.

**wrack** · Dec 1st, 2003, 12:02 AM

I just retyped an article from magazine. I should not be editing it and besides it had its days.

**mendhak** · Dec 1st, 2003, 12:33 AM

Whoa... paranormal thread here. It's stuck at the top!

**wrack** · Dec 1st, 2003, 04:38 AM

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.

**mendhak** · Dec 2nd, 2003, 11:54 PM

The FoxPro engine has a well-deserved reputation for speed.

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)

**sw_is_great** · Dec 3rd, 2003, 04:35 AM

why donnt people go for oracle ?????

**mendhak** · Dec 3rd, 2003, 04:55 AM

It's too large. Corporations could go for it. But people.... I can't see why they should.

**sw_is_great** · Dec 3rd, 2003, 05:05 AM

There comes personal Oracle

**mendhak** · Dec 3rd, 2003, 05:17 AM

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

**wrack** · Dec 3rd, 2003, 03:32 PM

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.

It's my review. I have taken that article from magazine and if you disagree then it's nothing I can do.

**wrack** · Dec 3rd, 2003, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by sw_is_great
why donnt people go for oracle ?????

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.

**wrack** · Dec 3rd, 2003, 03:35 PM

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

They would be qualified if I have found an article on it but I couldn't so ...

**techgnome** · Dec 3rd, 2003, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by mendhak
Actually, then MySQL would be much better (unless you really like triggers and stored procs).

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.
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.

**wrack** · Dec 3rd, 2003, 06:54 PM

I reckon stored procedures and triggers are fantastic.

**mendhak** · Dec 3rd, 2003, 10:57 PM

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.

**wrack** · Dec 4th, 2003, 05:57 PM

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]

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.

**mendhak** · Dec 4th, 2003, 10:41 PM

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.

<--- doesn't use multiple processors!

Compare the prices for 1 processor each, and their standard packages.

Right?

**sw_is_great** · Dec 5th, 2003, 09:42 AM

Oracle is just the best......

**wrack** · Dec 5th, 2003, 06:12 PM

SQL Server is the best. Higher price doesn't mean that oracle is best.

**mendhak** · Dec 5th, 2003, 11:05 PM

Originally posted by wrack
SQL Server is the best. Higher price doesn't mean that oracle is best.

Absolutely true. It's as if comparing MS-Access and MySQL and declaring MS-Access to be better because it costs money.

**wrack** · Dec 6th, 2003, 06:55 AM

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.

**nkad** · Dec 7th, 2003, 05:37 AM

why donnt people go for oracle ?????

Because its clunky... Even the personal edition...

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.

**wrack** · Dec 7th, 2003, 06:29 AM

Not to favour any company but MS user interface are usually very good except the foxpro one.

**nkad** · Dec 8th, 2003, 11:27 AM

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.

**wrack** · Dec 9th, 2003, 05:26 AM

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.

**sw_is_great** · Dec 10th, 2003, 05:39 AM

Go for Oracle....

Never go for MS ACCESS ---

**wrack** · Dec 10th, 2003, 05:45 AM

And pay more money. Oh yeah baby...

Originally posted by sw_is_great
Go for Oracle....

Never go for MS ACCESS ---

**sw_is_great** · Dec 10th, 2003, 05:58 AM

Oracle is almost as costly as MS Sql Server.

**mendhak** · Dec 10th, 2003, 07:08 AM

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

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

<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.

**nkad** · Dec 10th, 2003, 09:14 AM

sw_is_greatdid, u take an oracle class and decide it was the greatest thing in the world?

**wrack** · Dec 11th, 2003, 06:10 AM

As I already said.

Originally posted by sw_is_great
Oracle is almost as costly as MS Sql Server.

**wrack** · Dec 11th, 2003, 06:11 AM

Ya do a class for MCDBA and u will know.

Originally posted by nkad
sw_is_greatdid, u take an oracle class and decide it was the greatest thing in the world?

**sw_is_great** · Dec 13th, 2003, 01:55 PM

sw_is_greatdid, u take an oracle class and decide it was the greatest thing in the world?

-- i am new to this forum but not new in programming and oracle !!!

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...

**wrack** · Dec 13th, 2003, 07:44 PM

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?

**sw_is_great** · Dec 14th, 2003, 06:44 AM

True

**nkad** · Dec 14th, 2003, 10:36 PM

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

**sbasak** · Dec 15th, 2003, 02:47 AM

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 :-)

**sw_is_great** · Dec 15th, 2003, 04:53 AM

I totally agree with sbasak..

This is what I had been saying for long time.

Max of the worlds largest dbs are oracle.

**sw_is_great** · Dec 15th, 2003, 04:56 AM

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
=================================

Thread: Choosing the Right Microsoft Database

Thread Tools

Display

Choosing the Right Microsoft Database

Sql Server Vs Oracle

Posting Permissions