Comments on MS-SQL (2000, 7.0 and 6.5) and Oracle compared" (11 total)  
  Comment Sorted by
Date Written
Re: Oracle Vs SQL Server - The truth
by ptiemann
I disagree. I HAVE seen both dbms in a production environment. We are not talking about little internet companies with their primitive data schema.
We're talking about data warehousing, several hundred tables some with billions of rows.

Dec 14, 2000
9:00 am PST

Oracle Vs SQL Server - The truth
by lucie
The real problem with SQLServer is that when I see developers using it they ( and you do point this out) have a tendency to code first and think later, which means that performance is very slow, which for a web site will cost customers, and hence be the demise of the company. To properly create a database performance should also be a major consideration. Also you mention Oracle taking more disc space. This is because it stores more of the indexes and related items than SQL Server, and if you have seen Oracle in any production enviroment, it is much faster than SQL Server. Also, there are much better Oracle people out there than SQL Server, although that is starting to change.
Dec 13, 2000
12:10 pm PST

Re: Peter
by ptiemann
hm.. too many technical terms?

I felt that I had to back up my opinion with facts.

Sep 6, 2000
4:10 pm PDT

by alex39
this is another fine review, but on this one I was a bit turned off by what I call the techno-speak of the programmer's world. It's just a quirk of mine I acquired during my five years as a technical editor/writer at IBM in the 60's.

Sep 6, 2000
9:15 am PDT

Great software, Peter
by aashtech
and excellent review. I am very impressed with v7 in every way. Query Analyzer is a great little tool and setting up databases is so much easier than v6.5. (Permissions is still a hassle, but a minor one.)

Thanks (and I'm glad to see this category)

-- Steve (aashtech)
Aug 26, 2000
10:32 pm PDT

Great Review
by bgoodday
This was a very informative review. I have very little knowledge of the interworkings of Database programs. I do have some knowledge of the MS-SQL series of software. They seem to work great for medium to large companies that don't want to fork out all the money for Oracle. And from what I've heard about the new 2000 version is Microsoft's entry point into the Multi-Processor databases environment.

I apprecieate your fairness with this review. I learned something out of it.


Aug 16, 2000
2:41 pm PDT

by fanciladi
I just wish I understood it. Just reminds me of how much there is to learn about computers and programs.


Aug 15, 2000
7:05 pm PDT

I wish I knew
by ifif1938
everything you wrote about here .if only I was that computer savvy...but it's so well written I know it deserves the Hr I've given it :)
Aug 15, 2000
3:36 pm PDT

it's a "me too" business world
by johnwc937
Regarding your final comment:
"Sadly, the best product does not always win, and ORACLE was lucky to be the first kid on the block."

It's a shame that today's business world has become a "me too" environment. The biggest are deemed to be best instead of the best being the best.
-- John
Aug 15, 2000
9:51 am PDT

Re: Very good points.
by ptiemann
yes, that's right. Size & reliability.
The warehouse test that I mentioned required such a terabyte db.. not possible for PCs.

Aug 15, 2000
12:13 am PDT

Very good points.
by dbirchall
I'd note that of course, being restricted to Windows isn't just an issue
due to the performance of Intel-based systems. In a mission-critical
environment, availability is also of great importance, and although I've
heard Windows 2000 has greatly improved over previous versions in the
area of operating system stability, most major database installations
I've personally worked with (and I mean "major" as in over half a terabyte)
still run on large UNIX servers where 99.999% uptime is the norm. Of
course, it's not MS-SQL's fault that the underlying system has been less
than bulletproof. :)

Aug 15, 2000
12:09 am PDT