January 16, 2009 at 3:02 am
It would appear that I have made a bit of a stir with this question. Sorry all,
I think I’ll just stick at my MS SQL. Should be ready to sit my first exam soon. :O)
January 16, 2009 at 3:25 am
Like Gints / Jeff said, only a veteran in both Oracle and MS SQL can give a defenite (and objective) answer based on their hands own experience. Even then people tend to develop a personal liking for one over the other based on how much natural they are in it.
Better we apply theory of relativity here also?;)
January 16, 2009 at 8:40 am
There are *many* things Oracle can do that SQL Server can't. So much so, that Oracle is normally being refused because of its too many knobs....
Now that being said for a very large percentage of of the applications out there many of those knobs are NOT required and SQL Server excels at that. But for those where fine tuning to the T is critical Oracle is *the* way to go.
If
1. We forget about money (note normally we don't 😉 ) assume money is not a problem (nice, isn't it).
2. We Forget about knowlege of the DBA; assume we have infinite knowlege about both products.
and we want a task done as best as it can be done probably the solution will end up in Oracle's hand.
There are applications like "military", "space", "nuclear power controls", "Medical Applications", etc in which money is a factor that goes AFTER precision,reliability,...etc.
Granted, once again, these are NOT typical applications just something for you to think about.
On the other hand for a very large number of common scenarios, SQL Server provides what we need and is very convenient in terms of manageability and programmability.
Just my $0.02
* Noel
January 16, 2009 at 8:44 am
noeld (1/16/2009)
There are *many* things Oracle can do that SQL Server can't. So much so, that Oracle is normally being refused because of its too many knobs....Now that being said for a very large percentage of of the applications out there many of those knobs are NOT required and SQL Server excels at that. But for those where fine tuning to the T is critical Oracle is *the* way to go.
If
1. We forget about money (note normally we don't 😉 ) assume money is not a problem (nice, isn't it).
2. We Forget about knowlege of the DBA; assume we have infinite knowlege about both products.
and we want a task done as best as it can be done probably the solution will end up in Oracle's hand.
There are applications like "military", "space", "nuclear power controls", "Medical Applications", etc in which money is a factor that goes AFTER precision,reliability,...etc.
Granted, once again, these are NOT typical applications just something for you to think about.
On the other hand for a very large number of common scenarios, SQL Server provides what we need and is very convenient in terms of manageability and programmability.
Just my $0.02
Actually, for mission-critical reliability, a number of military projects have been switching from Oracle to a database product called Cache. Major pain to work with, but it apparently is much more robust.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
January 16, 2009 at 8:58 am
My opinion is definitely slanted since I earn my living with SQL Server and have only used Oracle in an academic environment, so I have vastly more experience with SQL Server than Oracle.
But, having experience with both, I will join the majority and say "It depends". In the vast majority of cases, I would take SQL Server in a heart beat. It is easier to use, easier to administer, and has vastly better tools that come with it. I would even happily toss the tools that come with SQL Server against the best tools you can buy for Oracle in most projects. It is also easier to write applications for. (As a disclaimer again, I have more experience in SQL Server, but I have used and written code for both).
While I would say SQL Server would win in most cases, there are 3 areas where I would pick Oracle:
1. Cross platform development since Oracle is available with very few differences on both Windows and Unix.
2. Scaling out. SQL Server has very limited ability to scale out right now, where Oracle is very robust there. I'm hoping SQL Server will catch up soon.
3. If it is necessary to maintain legacy applications already written in Oracle, (or legacy employees already trained in Oracle).
---
Timothy A Wiseman
SQL Blog: http://timothyawiseman.wordpress.com/
January 16, 2009 at 9:04 am
Just to toss this out there, but don't forget MySql as an option if you are making a RDBMS decision. In comparing MySql to SQL Server I would again say that SQL Server is superior in almost every way, but in the three areas I would chose Oracle over SQL Server, MySql compares quite nicely as well.
Mysql is cross platform and scales out quite well, and you can review the source code if you so chose.
Overall, for most things, I prefer SQL server, but both MySql and Oracle have a place in some situations.
---
Timothy A Wiseman
SQL Blog: http://timothyawiseman.wordpress.com/
January 16, 2009 at 9:13 am
If you're looking at the Open source market, and you want to use the above 3 deference makers... Enterprise DB (PostgreSQL) is the way to go... Ent. DB even has an Oracle (Redwood Mode), although I believe that's now what they are marketing as PostgreSQL Plus Advanced Server... Supposedly a drop-in replacement for apps that are supposed to run against an Oracle DB. It was rumored that they were working on a Redmond mode as well, but I don't think that ever came to pass...
-Luke.
January 16, 2009 at 9:18 am
GSquared (1/16/2009)
noeld (1/16/2009)
There are *many* things Oracle can do that SQL Server can't. So much so, that Oracle is normally being refused because of its too many knobs....Now that being said for a very large percentage of of the applications out there many of those knobs are NOT required and SQL Server excels at that. But for those where fine tuning to the T is critical Oracle is *the* way to go.
If
1. We forget about money (note normally we don't 😉 ) assume money is not a problem (nice, isn't it).
2. We Forget about knowlege of the DBA; assume we have infinite knowlege about both products.
and we want a task done as best as it can be done probably the solution will end up in Oracle's hand.
There are applications like "military", "space", "nuclear power controls", "Medical Applications", etc in which money is a factor that goes AFTER precision,reliability,...etc.
Granted, once again, these are NOT typical applications just something for you to think about.
On the other hand for a very large number of common scenarios, SQL Server provides what we need and is very convenient in terms of manageability and programmability.
Just my $0.02
Actually, for mission-critical reliability, a number of military projects have been switching from Oracle to a database product called Cache. Major pain to work with, but it apparently is much more robust.
I have been one of the "UNLUCKY" ones that worked with Cache in the past.
* Noel
January 16, 2009 at 9:24 am
If we are extending the subject so much I'd say that most probably everyone of these (List of database management systems) has some strengths 😉
Gints Plivna
http://www.gplivna.eu
January 16, 2009 at 1:06 pm
gints.plivna (1/16/2009)
If we are extending the subject so much I'd say that most probably everyone of these (List of database management systems) has some strengths 😉
Heh, you definitely have a point.
Of course, a lot of those databases systems are designed for very narrows, specialized niches, and do not compete head to head with SQL Server, Oracle, and MySql.
Personally, unless I have a compelling reason not to, I would select SQL Server. If I had a compelling reason not to use SQL Server (such as cross platform needs) then I would probably look at MySql before Oracle. They all have their niche and there are occasions to use each of them.
---
Timothy A Wiseman
SQL Blog: http://timothyawiseman.wordpress.com/
January 16, 2009 at 1:34 pm
hb21l6 (1/16/2009)
It would appear that I have made a bit of a stir with this question. Sorry all,I think I’ll just stick at my MS SQL. Should be ready to sit my first exam soon. :O)
Oh no... don't be sorry at all. That type of question is exactly what forums are all about. Some get a bit more heated up than the rest, but where else could anyone go and get such a wide diversity of mostly thoughful answers? Nah... you did good.
--Jeff Moden
January 16, 2009 at 2:26 pm
GSquared (1/16/2009)
noeld (1/16/2009)
There are *many* things Oracle can do that SQL Server can't. So much so, that Oracle is normally being refused because of its too many knobs....Now that being said for a very large percentage of of the applications out there many of those knobs are NOT required and SQL Server excels at that. But for those where fine tuning to the T is critical Oracle is *the* way to go.
If
1. We forget about money (note normally we don't 😉 ) assume money is not a problem (nice, isn't it).
2. We Forget about knowlege of the DBA; assume we have infinite knowlege about both products.
and we want a task done as best as it can be done probably the solution will end up in Oracle's hand.
There are applications like "military", "space", "nuclear power controls", "Medical Applications", etc in which money is a factor that goes AFTER precision,reliability,...etc.
Granted, once again, these are NOT typical applications just something for you to think about.
On the other hand for a very large number of common scenarios, SQL Server provides what we need and is very convenient in terms of manageability and programmability.
Just my $0.02
Actually, for mission-critical reliability, a number of military projects have been switching from Oracle to a database product called Cache. Major pain to work with, but it apparently is much more robust.
Some embedded systems also use InterBase (or did at one time). The Abrams tank targeting system is one system I read about a while back.
January 16, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Hey! How come nobody is mentioning how good Access is!? :hehe:
The Redneck DBA
January 16, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Jason Shadonix (1/16/2009)
Hey! How come nobody is mentioning how good Access is!? :hehe:
hmmm, point taken. Could be good for small desktop system or workgroup solution. Think not for larger audience (user group) or business critical system.
January 16, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Jason Shadonix (1/16/2009)
Hey! How come nobody is mentioning how good Access is!? :hehe:
It's great for single-user stuff. But price-for-price, it can't compete very well with SQL Express and Visual Studio Express. Might be slightly easier to build stuff in, but not by much.
For that matter, there have been times when Excel has been perfectly adequate for really simple database solutions. Just nothing that requires normalization, keys, etc. But for something like a simple, personal phone book, there's no need to go more complex than any of the flat-file solutions. Works spreadsheet, or the spreadsheet in Open Office will be better priced, and perfectly adequate to this need as well. Even there, I'd tend towards SQL Express over flat files, but most of the human race wouldn't. 🙂
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 250 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply