Re: Among available RDBMS. When to use ...

On Aug 13, 8:29 am, Rohit <rpk.gene...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This is a common question on forums. But they just compare the
features. At present RDBMS industry has matured a lot and the big
three have strong competitors too like EnterpriseDB, MySQL etc.

While comparing MS SQL Server, Oracle and DB2, an author writes in a
book:

IBM DB2
--------------
Reliability: Very reliable
Situation: Large to very large databases
Managebility: easy.

Oracle
--------------
Reliability: Very reliable
Situation: Medium to large databases
Managebility: difficult.

SQL Server
--------------
Reliability: low
Situation: small to medium sized databases
Managebility: easy.

Though, the above is the view of that author, I want to know which
RDBMS to use and in what situation, including open source.

If one is working in a company than it is the headache of the
company's project manager or product specialist to make this choice.
But I am running a mISV, so all decisions depend upon me. When you
have plenty of choices, you have to select carefully depending upon
customer's budget, data-size, scalability etc.

For SQL Server, I am not sure, if Microsoft continues to support old
SQL Server formats. Or they , as usual, at a point force to shift to a
new version.

Oracle is unnecessarily complicated and you have to involve a
dedicated DBA. Even, as Oracle claims it suitable for small-to-mid-
sized companies, it's cost and cryptic working is very difficult.

Just remember when looking at these things from a book reference:
books in the software industry go out of date very quickly.

I'm not convinced that the management of Oracle is more difficult than
the other big products.. And Oracle handles large databases, at least
as large as DB/2. As far as Oracle needing a DBA, I would question
the installation adn maintenance of any large database without a DBA.

So yes you do need a features list to choose a RDBMS product, but
among those features are attributes of manageability.

Disclaimer: I use Oracle. It can be pricey. But the benefits of
multiversioning over locking are just too much to ignore in many
applications.

Ed

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: why>?
    ... On your desktop-- you'll be running SQL Server behind the scenes. ... it isn't risky to allow end users to create databases. ... it is no more risky than giving you the ability to create spreadsheets. ... I'm not saying that Oracle and IBM are going away. ...
    (microsoft.public.excel)
  • Re: IOT, memory and transaction time
    ... easily generate it with DBMS_METADATA.GET_DDL if your verison of Oracle ... were pretty consistent no matter how big the table (this transaction ... FOREIGN KEY (versionNo) REFERENCES T_TRANSACTIONS, ... Oracle provides read consistency and SQL Server ...
    (comp.databases.oracle.misc)
  • Re: Database or store to handle 30 Mb/sec and 40,000 inserts/sec
    ... "Writers block readers and readers block writers in SQLServer. ... getting around this fundamental issue and because of it SQL Server ... admitted they can happen in Oracle, I guess Oracle should never been used ... isolation level but you will always disagree because you follow doctorine ...
    (comp.databases.oracle.server)
  • Re: IOT, memory and transaction time
    ... easily generate it with DBMS_METADATA.GET_DDL if your verison of Oracle ... If it was the update statement that references ... FOREIGN KEY (versionNo) REFERENCES T_TRANSACTIONS, ... There are however differences how both products deal with concurrency; in Oracle readers don't get blocked while this may happen in SQL Server. ...
    (comp.databases.oracle.misc)
  • Re: Import problems on Windows Server
    ... XP is fine, so is Vista, like you I use them day in day out, around 12 hours ... a day myself too - laptops and the desktop i'm writing this on. ... I use SQL Server on XP and Vista for writing and demo'ing stuff, ... those are the same problems in the Oracle world. ...
    (comp.databases.oracle.server)