Oracle vs MS-SQL

[Spacecadet]

And, FWIW, how good can SQL Server be when all you have to do to create a database is right click --> create database. FFS.

Why should it be any more difficult than it needs to be?
If the installation has been carried out properly then the correct date file directories and database collations will be applied automatically. Any tables, stored procedures, functions that you want to exist in all databases can be created straight away and you can get on with the important task of making the database do some work.
The purpose of a database is to manage data, not to give gainful employment to DBA's and developers.

In most cases a SQL Server system will be cheaper, quicker to set up, cheaper to maintain and easier to administer.

If you actually need massive amounts of guaranteed uptime, then get informix. I spent 10 months working on one system and not even so much as performance drop from a crap query and it was running 24/7 for the whole time without reboots

[richard-af]

Oracle Vs. MS-SQL

Oracle is the better of the two, here's why:

1. It runs on most significant platforms; MS-SQL runs on Windows, only.
2. Its architecture is, quite simply, better. Download the Oracle Concepts guide from oracle.com and compare Oracle's technology to MS-SQL's... no contest.

As for price, Oracle may be initially dearer, but quality always is.

BTW: If you want to get into contracting with either, I advise going for Oracle. By being, essentially, platform-independent, it is better protected from being "smashed" by the next Linux/Mac/whatever that will, undoubtedly, come along one day. Which all means you'd have a more secure future with Oracle.

[Diver]

Oracle = enterprise strength production (with the associated price tag)
MS SQL = small to medium enterprise (and appropriate price tag)

if you're looking at business critical, rock solid platform, go Oracle, if only for the sake that you can run it on a platform that you don't have to keep running windows update on just to mask/patch the bugs all the time.

(and if you don't have any dough, look at postgres or mysql, but that's another tread )

Oracle is where the big clients and the big bucks are.
I deal with the small to medium and you can take my word for it, general upkeep on MS based systems is extremely labor intensive, and being small to medium means that the fee's are too.
There is an old addage: anybody can be busy, being busy and making money is what counts.
MS SQL will put bread on the table for you, but if you want butter, Oracle.

[Rantor]

Platform independence is deffo a big plus, the ability to run it on a Windows Box or a zSeries to a Linux box

I switch between them as the both undepin my mealticket.

Just had a very unpleasent time with 10g (10.0.2.3 IIRC) that had a howlingly awful memory management bug in a dll. Exploding servers, memory dumps, clients weeping - I quite enjoyed it!

[sli_gryn]

Oracle = enterprise strength production (with the associated price tag)
MS SQL = small to medium enterprise (and appropriate price tag)

if you're looking at business critical, rock solid platform, go Oracle, if only for the sake that you can run it on a platform that you don't have to keep running windows update on just to mask/patch the bugs all the time.

(and if you don't have any dough, look at postgres or mysql, but that's another tread )

[portseven]

SQL Server is definitely improving, but as someone else has said - it's shackled to Windows which rules it out for higher end work

Platform independence is deffo a big plus, the ability to run it on a Windows Box or a zSeries to a Linux box

[MrsGoof]

SQL/MP any one?

[Captain Lockheed]

That used to be the case, but lately SQL Server has got much beefier and closed up the gap.

SQL Server is definitely improving, but as someone else has said - it's shackled to Windows which rules it out for higher end work

[thunderlizard]

That used to be the case, but lately SQL Server has got much beefier and closed up the gap.

[EqualOpportunities]

Oracle = Macho Guys huffing and puffing

SQL Server does just the same with out all the faff

Maybe - but SQL Server can only 'do it' on a fecking Windoze box that needs rebooting three times a day...

And, FWIW, how good can SQL Server be when all you have to do to create a database is right click --> create database. FFS.

[oraclesmith]

Read the first few chapters of 'Expert Oracle Database Architecture' by Tom Kyte, then you'll understand why Oracle technology is worth it's big price tag.

[lilelvis2000]

Speaking from my experience.
Oracle markets their product for the big boys and large databases. They are expensive. I just paid £30,000 for 25 user licences and 25 developer licences (I am the one and only developer BTW). 25 is the minimum you can buy at £550 a pop. Plus on top you may (depending on your other licences) pay for Oracle Reports or Oracle Discoverer. Neither are particularly good. Oracle has a cr*ppy data import and export tool and their task schedular is b0ll0x. I still can get used to all the redo and undo stuff and the transaction model. Can't tell you how many times I think I've done a update only to find hours later I haven't.

SQL server markets more towards small team systems but I think it can do a lot more. As expected it integrates very well with other MS products. Its a snap to get it working with MS Directory Server (?) and Office. MS is also adding a lot of the features that Oracle has (check out the 2008 version features on MSDN) and it is fast. I has an excellent data import and export facility. task scheduling is a snap and the query analyser is far ahead of anything Oracle has. It comes with Reporting services and OLAP included for "free".

Of the two I prefer SQL Server for its ease of use and brilliant access from COM to run bits and pieces. Bang for the buck, it can't be beat in my book. Only "Oracle shops" should still buy Oracle - everyone else should seriously consider SQL Server.

[DimPrawn]

Oracle have been implementing gigantic databases for donkeys years.

In comparison MS SQL Server is just a fresh faced kid on the block.

In theory, given the right people MS SQL Server on the right hardware can match Oracle on performance and kick its old wrinkly butt on bang per buck.

However there are a lot of idiots DBA's and paper MCSE's out there fecking up MS SQL installs so it runs like a dog.

If you want big bucks as a contractor, the money is in Oracle.

[Fishface]

Oracle = Macho Guys huffing and puffing

SQL Server does just the same with out all the faff

[portseven]

OK,

Question for you database guru's

My understanding is that you deploy Oracle for 'big stuff' and MS-SQL for 'smaller stuff'. Thats really just based on accepted practice in places I have worked and 'gut feel'

Can anyone give me a more informed answer why that is true or not?

Thanks