Re: a comparison of different databases

grant@towersoft.com.au (Fuzzy) wrote: >Phil Edwards <news-uk@dircon.co.uk> wrote: >>Franco Scarselli wrote: >>> >>> I need a SQL server to manage data. The candidates are the Oracle SQL >>> server, the Sybase SQL and the Microsoft SQL server. >>< snip > >>> Microsoft SQL seems to be cheap and at the same time it should work well >>> in an enviroment completely based on Microsoft operative systems. >>Don't bank on it! >Cheap it is, compared to Oracle. Phil's right about not banking on >its integration with the OS> >>> Microsoft SQL does not have row locking, but for some years I will not >>> need it, because we have few client PCs. >>Again, don't bank on it! Deadlocks are almost inevitable, but row-level >>locking is your best bet for an increased Mean Time Between Deadlocks. >Not for MS SQL Server with only a handful of clients. If they are >performing "Joe Punchcard" style operations, I'll buy you a beer for >every deadlock they get. Besides, v6.5 of SQL Server has implemented >row-level locking. It's not perfect - you can notice the performance >drop - but we all know MS will hammer this until they can atleast >claim to beat all Oracle's locking benchmarks on paper. <takes huge >grain of salt> >>> In the mean time, Microsoft >>> will provide to resolve the problem (I hope). Microsoft SQL runs only on >>> NT server, however NT is likely to replace DOS and WINDOS and to became >>> very widespread so that the fact could not be a major drawback. >>At the risk of repeating myself... don't bank on it! M$'s OS strategy has >>changed about twice a year for as long as I've been watching it. >A good point. Who knows what MS will do. One thing in its favour is >that NT has always been the winner in these "re-orientations". >>> Oracle enterprise server is far more expensive. However, Oracle >>> Workgroup server is competitive, even if it lacks of data replication. >>> Further, I know that Oracle enterprise has a lot of more features, but >>> what about Workgroup server with respect to Microsoft and Sybase >>> servers? Further, a WEB server would be useful for me and the Oracle >>> WEB server is very expensive. On the other hand Oracle products are more >>> scalable. Further, Oracle is the leader of the market, it is very >>> interested in spend money to mantain its position. This should be an >>> assurance for the future. >>Technically Oracle is ahead of the field. What you need to consider is >>whether this means a more stable product or simply one with lots of >>additional features. In at least one respect (row-level locking), at >>least one of the other DBMSs is significantly behind Oracle. >The most important point with Oracle is "Can I afford $50k - $100k per >annum paying the DBA that Oracle ALWAYS needs, because it is still >such a disgusting product to administer?" >>> Sybase offers two products: Sybase SQL server and Anywhere SQL server. >>> The former is similar to Microsoft SQL server because they are both the >>> result of the development of the old Sybase SQL server. However, there >>> is Unix version for Sybase SQL. Anywhere come from Whatcom SQL and is a >>> very simple DBMS which has the advantage of beeing able to run with very >>> few memory and to support Windows 95, Windows 3.1 .... >>Watcom. Nice products. >Amen. If you're only ever going to have 20 to 30 users, seriously >consider SQL Anywhere. It's as easy to administer as falling asleep >at your PC, doesn't need fancy back-up handling, and is a genuinely >nice product. >>> Pheraphs in my >>> case, I could use Anywhere in branch offices and Sybase SQL in main >>> office. Sybase products are cheap, expecially Anywhere. Of corse they >>> lack of some feature with respect to Oracle, but what about Sybase SQL >>> server with respect to Microsoft SQL server? >Now your getting into deep water. >>Or you could get an AS/400 (built-in database, runs Netware, runs Notes). >>But I guess I would say that. >>-- >>Phil Edwards phil@news400.com >>Editor, NEWS/400.UK +44 (0)161 929 0777 I understand the problems you are encountering. I had and Oracle cd handed to me in Feb. We finaly got the first program to run yesterday. We are running DB2-2 and are converting one system to Oracle. The conversion time is terrible. The pilot program was just a simple add, chng, del. As of right now I am not very high on Oracle. It runs best on an overhead projecter. For the cost it should be a lot better than what it is. DG Higginbotham