Which ?

[mcquiggd]

Write your own DBMS...

You know it makes sense....

 

[expat]

Oracle. hugely expensive, complicated, difficult to manage and tune, highly paid DBA's, not Windows friendly, everything is extra, nightmare when it goes wrong.

SQL Server 2005. Cheap as chips, powerful, self tuning and managing, DBA's ten a penny, Windows friendly, .NET built in, comes with OLAP and data mining tools.

Biggest no brainer question this year.

Oracle. Works (if it's run by a real DBA). Scaleable.

SQL Server. Toy.

 

[OwlHoot]

Transactions are only for people who can't code.

LOL - quote of the week.

I must remember to say that when some smartass geek asks about transactions at my next interview.

 

[mcquiggd]

Oracle. Works (if it's run by a real DBA). Scaleable.

SQL Server. Toy.

Ah, no longer... maybe back in SQL Server 6.5 days....

2000 was a good product, for departmental and properly setup public facing internet apps...

2005 APPEARS to be a major improvement... time will tell once implementations go into production.....

A lot of companies ive worked at were switching away from Oracle... the average turnover of which is circa 12 - 15 billion pounds a year. DB2 was still used for core business, but for fast changing, public facing apps, it went the full MS route....

 

[Francko]

I have a choice of working with either SQLServer or Oracle within my company. I need to advise them which way to go. I need to support a couple of hundred users in a mixed workload environment (OLTP, Batch & Reporting)
The O/S will be Windows 2003 Server. My understanding is that Oracle is the better database technically but SQLServer is cheaper and easier to integrate with other MS technologies. My company will most likely buy into whatever technology will deliver value for money but also be secure and be able to scale.
Any views gratefully received.

Go for the SQL server. Claim the accomplishment and get a bonus for all the money you saved. Once the users will be a thousand instead of two hundred and you have generated more costs than what you saved, resign and apply for another position.

Seiously, it all depends on the rest of the architecture and application distribution, current and prospected. Having said that, MS have improved their DB substantially over the years. And it also comes down to the negotiating power of your company towards Oracle (but if you don't have any installation already I doubt this will be strong).

 

[NoddY]

Please don't get wrapped up in technical discussion: always pick the one that costs the most - it must be the 'best'.

 

[expat]

DB2 was still used for core business....

Yes it's true. I switched from mainframe to client/server many years ago, and eventually came from Oracle to Siebel, but the more I've got into the interface between Siebel and the DB, the more I've found myself on contracts where the old green-screen interfacing from 20 years back is of daily use to me. So,

DB2. Real database for real computers.
Oracle. Jumped-up dot-com californication. Help keep Larry's yacht afloat.
SQL Server. Toy. Just named that way to grab other people's Google results.

HTH