Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations Chriss Miller on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
SQL Server Vs Oracle 1
- Thread starter tapks
- Start date
-
1
- #2
Follow the following link:
thread183-86041 you search this forum you should find more answers, but i personally prefer SQL Server if your operating system is windows based. If you have to stick with a Unix derivative then obviuosly SQL Server does not qualify.
I managed a full blown ERP solution using Oracle and now i manage many SQL Server and Oracle installations and find SQL Server to be easier to program and manage, and cheaper to own and run.
SQL is superior to Oracle in the data type support, i.e.
SQL Server has datetime types with split seconds[hh.mm.ss.sss] which where as Oracle has only the basic datetime type[hh.mm.ss]. Interger and Numeric type support in SQL is more granular having Numeric,Decimal,Real,Int,Smallint, Double,BigInt, TinyInt which helps save storage requirements. Oracle is more limited in this area. Oracle creates rownums automatically for you , where as SQL leaves it up to you to decide and use an Identity column, again saving space, though probably not very important in view of the low storage cost these days.
SQL server has better support for connections to IBM Host/Mainframe based DB2 systems which are common in larger enterprises.
SQL Server's SQL Anayzer [a tool used to manage the database] is far superior to Oracle's SQL Plus which i find to be delibitating to work with.
SQL Server's backup process is easier to work with.
SQL Server.
Oracle has the notion of a storage structure called RollBack Segments which are horrible to attend to when laoding vig amounts of data. I heard they are removed in Oracle 9i but in previuos versions it was there.
Oracle has Sequence objects to create per table for automatically creating unique keys, which i find to be awkward and hard to manage and plan. SQL on the other hand gives you the ability to declare a column to be an Identity column within the table definition which is easy to manage and straight forward.
SQL replication is GUI based and easy to setup and manage and replicates data to all important types of data formats created by man kind, i.e. all relational databases, MS Access and others. Oracle's replication is excellent only when replicating among oracle databases.
When you need to scale out a database into many servers, SQL has better performing [according to www.TPC.org] distributed partitioned views that are easy to setup and are the current leader in the trasaction processing council's benchmarks.
From my experience, SQL Server has the overall performance advantage and find it more responsive all things being equal.
SQL data loading is easier with much more tools and commands for the purpose. SQL has a free GUI tool installed by default within an SQL installation called DTS, aka, data transformation service. It is easy to use and can be programmed with VBScript or JavaScript to do all sorts of data transformations even suitable for large data warehousing installations. I use it to automate all our installation data loading chores, with source and target being so hetrogenuos from big DB2 databases down to Excel files, though in a real big data warehousing environment, probably the best solution is not DTS. The current leader is from third party offerings such as Ascential DataStage.
Enough said, if you have Unix OS go with Oracle. If you use Windows the clear winner is SQL Server.
thread183-86041 you search this forum you should find more answers, but i personally prefer SQL Server if your operating system is windows based. If you have to stick with a Unix derivative then obviuosly SQL Server does not qualify.
I managed a full blown ERP solution using Oracle and now i manage many SQL Server and Oracle installations and find SQL Server to be easier to program and manage, and cheaper to own and run.
SQL is superior to Oracle in the data type support, i.e.
SQL Server has datetime types with split seconds[hh.mm.ss.sss] which where as Oracle has only the basic datetime type[hh.mm.ss]. Interger and Numeric type support in SQL is more granular having Numeric,Decimal,Real,Int,Smallint, Double,BigInt, TinyInt which helps save storage requirements. Oracle is more limited in this area. Oracle creates rownums automatically for you , where as SQL leaves it up to you to decide and use an Identity column, again saving space, though probably not very important in view of the low storage cost these days.
SQL server has better support for connections to IBM Host/Mainframe based DB2 systems which are common in larger enterprises.
SQL Server's SQL Anayzer [a tool used to manage the database] is far superior to Oracle's SQL Plus which i find to be delibitating to work with.
SQL Server's backup process is easier to work with.
SQL Server.
Oracle has the notion of a storage structure called RollBack Segments which are horrible to attend to when laoding vig amounts of data. I heard they are removed in Oracle 9i but in previuos versions it was there.
Oracle has Sequence objects to create per table for automatically creating unique keys, which i find to be awkward and hard to manage and plan. SQL on the other hand gives you the ability to declare a column to be an Identity column within the table definition which is easy to manage and straight forward.
SQL replication is GUI based and easy to setup and manage and replicates data to all important types of data formats created by man kind, i.e. all relational databases, MS Access and others. Oracle's replication is excellent only when replicating among oracle databases.
When you need to scale out a database into many servers, SQL has better performing [according to www.TPC.org] distributed partitioned views that are easy to setup and are the current leader in the trasaction processing council's benchmarks.
From my experience, SQL Server has the overall performance advantage and find it more responsive all things being equal.
SQL data loading is easier with much more tools and commands for the purpose. SQL has a free GUI tool installed by default within an SQL installation called DTS, aka, data transformation service. It is easy to use and can be programmed with VBScript or JavaScript to do all sorts of data transformations even suitable for large data warehousing installations. I use it to automate all our installation data loading chores, with source and target being so hetrogenuos from big DB2 databases down to Excel files, though in a real big data warehousing environment, probably the best solution is not DTS. The current leader is from third party offerings such as Ascential DataStage.
Enough said, if you have Unix OS go with Oracle. If you use Windows the clear winner is SQL Server.
tlbroadbent
MIS
Ther are a lot of comparisons out on the WEB but most deal with costs, TCO, licensing, etc. rather than features comparison. I don't use Oracle so I can't compare teh software features.
Check here for a Microsoft perspective. There are several links to other pages.
SQL Server 2000 for Oracle Database Professionals
If you want to get the best answer for your question read faq183-874.
Terry L. Broadbent - DBA
SQL Server Page:
Check here for a Microsoft perspective. There are several links to other pages.
SQL Server 2000 for Oracle Database Professionals
If you want to get the best answer for your question read faq183-874.
Terry L. Broadbent - DBA
SQL Server Page:
- Thread starter
- #5
tlbroadbent
MIS
Ask the question in an Oracle forum. forum759: Oracle 9i If you want to get the best answer for your question read faq183-874.
Terry L. Broadbent - DBA
SQL Server Page:
Terry L. Broadbent - DBA
SQL Server Page:
I have not had any hands-on experience with Oracle 9i, so my contribution here would have to be limited. To that end i list the following links:
This link provides great insights of the technical differences between the two RDBSM products:
And MS has this on Oracle 9i:
This link provides great insights of the technical differences between the two RDBSM products:
And MS has this on Oracle 9i:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
