Re: Oracle 10g compared to MS SQL SERVER
- From: DA Morgan <damorgan@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 09:09:14 -0700
Mr Bob wrote:
Can anyone provide a comparative analysis between these two databases
that are halfway objective?
I have found one study:
http://www.theedison.com/index.php/articles/170
Has anyone read this study and/or have any comments?
Replication and Clustering are important.
I attended one meeting where a Project Manager stated that MS SQL
server is faster and requires less people to manage thereby saving on
manageability costs.......I almost fell out of my chair.....
Thanks
Mr. Bob
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with Hans. The latest
studies show Oracle easier to manage than SQL Server and if one
is comparing Apples to Apples meaning Oracle Standard Edition
to SQL Server Enterprise then Oracle is not more expensive. One
only finds Oracle more expensive when applying the logic that
EE = EE which is not true in this case.
From my standpoint there are many things that Oracle SE does that
Microsoft can only hope to some day achieve. Does SQL Server have
a tecnology equivalent to RAC? No! Not for any price? To BEFORE
TRIGGERS? Not for any price? To sequences? To many other basic
Oracle capabilities? Not for any price. Can one create a secure
audit trail in SQL Server to comply with SarbOx? HIPPA? FACTA?
Basel II?
I'd suggest your product manager go Oracle and then invest in
providing some training for the employees so that they can use
the tool effectively.
Daniel Morgan
www.psoug.org
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Oracle 10g compared to MS SQL SERVER
- From: HansF
- Re: Oracle 10g compared to MS SQL SERVER
- References:
- Oracle 10g compared to MS SQL SERVER
- From: Mr Bob
- Oracle 10g compared to MS SQL SERVER
- Prev by Date: Re: Crystal Reports 10 in Oracle 9i
- Next by Date: Re: Refresh materialized view by other user then owner
- Previous by thread: Re: Oracle 10g compared to MS SQL SERVER
- Next by thread: Re: Oracle 10g compared to MS SQL SERVER
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|