SQL Server 2005 vs Oracle

[Paul]

Anyone know where I can find some good resources to help us choose between
SQL and Oracle ( Progress Openedge as well ) . Any comments on what you
would choose ?? We are creating a new Warehouse Management System which wil
manage our very large inventory.

Anyway comments suggestions welcome

Thanks
Paul

[Jack]

Re: SQL Server 2005 vs Oracle

this is something like comparing oranges and apples but lets try...

Some questions arise:
- what platform are you intend to work Unix, Windows ?

Well, progress is dead meat, forget it.

SQL Server has many features and looks good, but in mission critical systems
it is still
five years behind of Oracle.

Oracle has been and will be RDBMS for many critical system, choose this.

Others are wellcome to comment ;)

"Paul" <paul@home.co m> wrote in message news:5yWYf.4870 $4S.829@edtnps8 2...[color=blue]
> Anyone know where I can find some good resources to help us choose between
> SQL and Oracle ( Progress Openedge as well ) . Any comments on what you
> would choose ?? We are creating a new Warehouse Management System which
> wil manage our very large inventory.
>
> Anyway comments suggestions welcome
>
> Thanks
> Paul
>[/color]

[Tony Rogerson]

Re: SQL Server 2005 vs Oracle

The user base for people using Microsoft SQL Server for their mission
critical database is massive, probably in terms of installations far out
numbers that of Oracle (notice I said installations rather than revenue).

Whilst SQL Server has a very strong BI offering that comes as part of the
product and included in the cost - Oracle doesn't, it relies on extensions
to its relational database and has no reporting facilities - you need to pay
extra to get BI with Oracle.

Others are wellcome to comment ;)

--
Tony Rogerson
SQL Server MVP
http://sqlserverfaq.com - free video tutorials


"Jack" <none@INVALIDma il.com> wrote in message
news:ug8Zf.124$ _g4.0@read3.ine t.fi...[color=blue]
> this is something like comparing oranges and apples but lets try...
>
> Some questions arise:
> - what platform are you intend to work Unix, Windows ?
>
> Well, progress is dead meat, forget it.
>
> SQL Server has many features and looks good, but in mission critical
> systems it is still
> five years behind of Oracle.
>
> Oracle has been and will be RDBMS for many critical system, choose this.
>
> Others are wellcome to comment ;)
>
> "Paul" <paul@home.co m> wrote in message news:5yWYf.4870 $4S.829@edtnps8 2...[color=green]
>> Anyone know where I can find some good resources to help us choose
>> between SQL and Oracle ( Progress Openedge as well ) . Any comments on
>> what you would choose ?? We are creating a new Warehouse Management
>> System which wil manage our very large inventory.
>>
>> Anyway comments suggestions welcome
>>
>> Thanks
>> Paul
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]

[DA Morgan]

Re: SQL Server 2005 vs Oracle

Paul wrote:[color=blue]
> Anyone know where I can find some good resources to help us choose between
> SQL and Oracle ( Progress Openedge as well ) . Any comments on what you
> would choose ?? We are creating a new Warehouse Management System which wil
> manage our very large inventory.
>
> Anyway comments suggestions welcome
>
> Thanks
> Paul[/color]

This type of question generally invites a bloody good flame war but I
will try to present some of the deltas that flavour Oracle in the least
inflammatory way that I can.

Be very careful when comparing these two products as the verbiage may be
the same but the concepts and technologies can be very different. For
example a database in SQL Sever equals a schema in Oracle and has
absolutely nothing to do with the Oracle concept of a database. Neither
is a SQL Server instance the same concept as an Oracle instance.

Both products have log files but they work in very different ways. In
SQL Server one sizes log files to handle the largest transaction and its
rollback. In Oracle one can perform an infinitely large transaction
using a couple of small log files.

Both products have tables but that is pretty much where the similarity
ends. Oracle provides heap tables (same as a SQL Server table) but also
two types of global temporary tables (the tables aren't temporary ...
the data is), external tables, compressed tables, index organized
tables, nested tables, partitioned, and XML tables. Not to mention
objects such as sorted hash clusters.

Talk about indexes and in SQL Server you find BTree and Bitmap indexes.
In Oracle you will also find bitmap join, compressed, descending,
function-based, reverse key, and no-segment indexes.

And this type of difference extends throughout the products. For example
SQL Server has no object types that perform the functions of Oracle's
packages, sequences, user-defined operators, rule-sets, and many more.

Look at security and you will find the differences are very substantial
as is the range of operating system options. You'll never run SQL Server
on Linux. And on Windows you will always be the target of every virus,
trojan, worm, and disgruntled employee that knows anything about the
o/s. Be sure to look at auditing with Sarbanes-Oxley and similar laws
in mind.

How important is 7x24 operation? There is no SQL Server technology
equivalent to Oracle' Real Application Clusters. They are working hard
in Redmond to get it in a future version but that is years away. And
how important would a capability such as resumable transactions be as
Oracle provides with their DBMS_RESUMABLE built-in package?

Be sure too to look at the differences in the transaction models. They
are completely different. In Oracle reads never block writes and writes
never block reads and there are an infinite number of row-level locks.
Lock escalation does not exist.

Finally, in spite of marketing types naming things to help sell them,
the fact is that SQL Server's Enterprise Edition is approximately
equal to Oracle's Standard Edition. Oracle's Enterprise Edition contains
essentially nothing but features SQL Server does not offer. Only the
name "Enterprise " is the same.

Feel free to contact me off-line if you wish as I have no interest in
fueling the inevitable name-calling any further than I already have.
Also feel free to visit my web site "Morgan's Library" at www.psoug.org.
--
Daniel A. Morgan

http://www.psoug.org

damorgan@x.wash ington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)

[Doug]

Re: SQL Server 2005 vs Oracle

they both work.

do you prefer a chevy pickup, or a dodge pickup?


but, this begs the question, WHY ARE YOU CREATING AN INVENTORY SYSTEM
FROM SCRATCH???????? go buy an application that fits your needs, and
use whatever they tell you to.

[DA Morgan]

Re: SQL Server 2005 vs Oracle

Doug wrote:[color=blue]
> they both work.
>
> do you prefer a chevy pickup, or a dodge pickup?
>
>
> but, this begs the question, WHY ARE YOU CREATING AN INVENTORY SYSTEM
> FROM SCRATCH???????? go buy an application that fits your needs, and
> use whatever they tell you to.[/color]

Most applications are available supporting multiple database platforms.

Due diligence requires that first you make sure that the system complies
with the laws in your jurisdiction. If you can't achieve Sarbanes-Oxley
in the US or Basel II in Europe you can stop right there. And then there
is the entire issue around internal development to be considered.
--
Daniel A. Morgan

http://www.psoug.org

damorgan@x.wash ington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)

[Hugo Kornelis]

Re: SQL Server 2005 vs Oracle

On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 21:22:09 GMT, Paul wrote:
[color=blue]
>Anyone know where I can find some good resources to help us choose between
>SQL and Oracle ( Progress Openedge as well ) . Any comments on what you
>would choose ?? We are creating a new Warehouse Management System which wil
>manage our very large inventory.
>
>Anyway comments suggestions welcome[/color]

Hi Paul,

The two major considerations are: what platform are you (or your staff)
already familiar with, and what features do you need.

Moving to a new platform is costly. You lose lots of productivity
attending courses or studying books. Then, you'll be less productive
while getting acquainted and using your new knowledge for real for the
first time. And you'll inevitably lose time cleaning up after using a
syntax that turns out to be disastrous in the new platform. If you're
familiar with either Oracle or SQL Server, stick with what you know!

Features: The platforms have a lot in common, but both also offer some
unique features. Visit MS' and Oracle's sites: both companies are very
good at pointing out the features their competitors lack. If any feature
that is critical or very important for your application is in one of the
products only, choose that product.

Price should be last on your list. Not because price is unimportant, but
because the other issues are even more important. You'll have to do your
own research, but here are some things that I have heard numerous times:
- Licensing cost for MS SQL Server is cheaper than for a comparable
Oracle setup. Of course, you do save on OS licensing costs if you
run Oracle on Linux.
- Oracle is more efficient. You have to spend less on hardware to get
the same performance.
- Oracle databases are harder to manage. A single DBA can easily manage
five or more SQL Servers, but you need at least three DBA's to manage
a single Oracle instance.
(I can't quote any URL for any of those, though - they might but they
might be urban legends just as well. I encourage you to check the facts
and find either confirmation or denial of what I read)

And if price can't help you decide either, you'll just have to flip a
coin, I guess. Or consider where you feel more at home - at a platform
that sees it's advocates roaming the newsgroups of the competition in
order to win some souls, or at a platform that has a strong community pf
users who'll try to find out what's best for you? <WINK>

You'll have noticed that my comments are fairly broad. I can't give more
details, though, as I have no experience with Oracle. Everything I know
about Oracle is hearsay. This precludes me from posting an in-depth
comparison of Oracle vs MS SQL Server.

--
Hugo Kornelis, SQL Server MVP

[Brian Peasland]

Re: SQL Server 2005 vs Oracle

> Price should be last on your list. Not because price is unimportant, but[color=blue]
> because the other issues are even more important. You'll have to do your
> own research, but here are some things that I have heard numerous times:
> - Licensing cost for MS SQL Server is cheaper than for a comparable
> Oracle setup. Of course, you do save on OS licensing costs if you
> run Oracle on Linux.[/color]

Linux is cheaper, in fact it is free. However, if you use one of the big
boys (Red Hat, etc), then you may end up paying a large amount for
support costs. I've seen Linux cost more than Windows...and I've seen it
cost less too. That being said, you can always run Oracle on Windows and
it becomes a wash.
[color=blue]
> - Oracle databases are harder to manage. A single DBA can easily manage
> five or more SQL Servers, but you need at least three DBA's to manage
> a single Oracle instance.[/color]

I would disagree here. At least, I would disagree if you are using
Oracle 10g. I do caveat that with the notion that I have not experienced
SQL Server 2005 yet. But I do have plenty of experience with SQL Server
2000 and much more with Oracle. Oracle 10g is the most self-managing
database Oracle has ever put out. It is much easier to manage than
previous Oracle versions.

Cheers,
Brian


--
=============== =============== =============== =============== =======

Brian Peasland
oracle_dba@nosp am.peasland.net

http://www.peasland.net

Remove the "nospam." from the email address to email me.


"I can give it to you cheap, quick, and good.
Now pick two out of the three" - Unknown

[DA Morgan]

Re: SQL Server 2005 vs Oracle

Hugo Kornelis wrote:
[color=blue]
> Moving to a new platform is costly. You lose lots of productivity
> attending courses or studying books.[/color]

The average time it takes competent (the operative word here being
competent) Windows admins to learn Linux or most flavours of UNIX
sufficient to work with a database product whether Oracle or Sybase
or whatever) is less than a week.

Oracle on any flavor of UNIX is identical to Oracle on Windows once
the initial installation is completed. The only skill required after
that is minor variations of basic DOS navigation skills.

If you were talking about moving an entire enterprise I would agree
with you. But one or two database servers. I'd come in and do it in a
single day and so would many consultants.
--
Daniel A. Morgan

http://www.psoug.org

damorgan@x.wash ington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)

[Hugo Kornelis]

Re: SQL Server 2005 vs Oracle

On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 15:57:05 -0700, DA Morgan wrote:
[color=blue]
>Hugo Kornelis wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Moving to a new platform is costly. You lose lots of productivity
>> attending courses or studying books.[/color]
>
>The average time it takes competent (the operative word here being
>competent) Windows admins to learn Linux or most flavours of UNIX
>sufficient to work with a database product whether Oracle or Sybase
>or whatever) is less than a week.[/color]
(snip)

Hi DA,

I refered to the cost of moving to another database platform, ie someone
familiar with SQL Server moving to Oracle, or someone familiar with
Oracle moving to SQL Server.

--
Hugo Kornelis, SQL Server MVP

[Doug]

Re: SQL Server 2005 vs Oracle

oh spare me. sarbanes-oxley isn't going to tell you what db to run.

again, i think you are pretty new at corporate level implementations of
an application. installing the OS is TRIVIAL compared to developing the
app.
Developing the app is trivial compared to implmeneting it.
implementing it is trivial comparted to long term ramifications of
whether the app meets the business needs.

find a solution that works for someone else, steal it, buy it, or
borrow it. Writing it from scratch is a LAST resort.

[Tony Rogerson]

Re: SQL Server 2005 vs Oracle

Yes, it is very difficult to compare the two products, often Oracle DBA's
like yourself concentrate purley on what the RDBMS engine has to offer.

They ignore that SQL Server is a product set that comes (as part of the
cost), an enterprise ETL tool, an enterprise OLAP tool, Reporting tool,
Notification Services, Service Broker (messaging tool), Textual Search, Data
Mining, a powerful set of developer tools, SQL Profiler, Database Engine
Tuning Advisor again - all come with the product.

With Oracle you pay for everything seperately and it costs a lot - the cost
of the profiler and database tuning tool comparitive is more than the cost
for SQL Serve itself!

The entry bar to 'Enterprise' has changed significantly, 5 - 10GB databases
used to be classified 'enterprise' 10 years ago but they are common place
now in the small / medium business tiers.

Most required Enterprise availability features are now in SQL Server 2005,
there are a number of 'specialist' features like RAC's that aren't yet but
it will come, only if business tells MS they want it though. I've heard so
many sob stories around RAC, I have the impression in a real situation they
don't really work.

There are different mindsets to creating a 24x7 environment, within the SQL
space (and application tier) its all about scaling out; you can do that
using peer to peer replication for instance, that can be implemented so that
the servers are on different continents, you do need to think around data
partitioning but it works.

I think oracle specialists like yourself and some others a frequent the
oracle forums get judgement clouded and think that the way oracle have
implemented solutions to solve business problems like availability is the
only way to do things - that just isn't true and shows a complete arrogance
within the industry - there are several ways to skin a cat and all have
merits and downsides, RAC for instance - the skill level and man power
required is high.

--
--
Tony Rogerson
SQL Server MVP
http://sqlserverfaq.com - free video tutorials

"DA Morgan" <damorgan@psoug .org> wrote in message
news:1144339895 .223894@yasure. drizzle.com...[color=blue]
> Paul wrote:[color=green]
>> Anyone know where I can find some good resources to help us choose
>> between SQL and Oracle ( Progress Openedge as well ) . Any comments on
>> what you would choose ?? We are creating a new Warehouse Management
>> System which wil manage our very large inventory.
>>
>> Anyway comments suggestions welcome
>>
>> Thanks
>> Paul[/color]
>
> This type of question generally invites a bloody good flame war but I will
> try to present some of the deltas that flavour Oracle in the least
> inflammatory way that I can.
>
> Be very careful when comparing these two products as the verbiage may be
> the same but the concepts and technologies can be very different. For
> example a database in SQL Sever equals a schema in Oracle and has
> absolutely nothing to do with the Oracle concept of a database. Neither
> is a SQL Server instance the same concept as an Oracle instance.
>
> Both products have log files but they work in very different ways. In
> SQL Server one sizes log files to handle the largest transaction and its
> rollback. In Oracle one can perform an infinitely large transaction
> using a couple of small log files.
>
> Both products have tables but that is pretty much where the similarity
> ends. Oracle provides heap tables (same as a SQL Server table) but also
> two types of global temporary tables (the tables aren't temporary ...
> the data is), external tables, compressed tables, index organized
> tables, nested tables, partitioned, and XML tables. Not to mention
> objects such as sorted hash clusters.
>
> Talk about indexes and in SQL Server you find BTree and Bitmap indexes.
> In Oracle you will also find bitmap join, compressed, descending,
> function-based, reverse key, and no-segment indexes.
>
> And this type of difference extends throughout the products. For example
> SQL Server has no object types that perform the functions of Oracle's
> packages, sequences, user-defined operators, rule-sets, and many more.
>
> Look at security and you will find the differences are very substantial
> as is the range of operating system options. You'll never run SQL Server
> on Linux. And on Windows you will always be the target of every virus,
> trojan, worm, and disgruntled employee that knows anything about the o/s.
> Be sure to look at auditing with Sarbanes-Oxley and similar laws
> in mind.
>
> How important is 7x24 operation? There is no SQL Server technology
> equivalent to Oracle' Real Application Clusters. They are working hard
> in Redmond to get it in a future version but that is years away. And
> how important would a capability such as resumable transactions be as
> Oracle provides with their DBMS_RESUMABLE built-in package?
>
> Be sure too to look at the differences in the transaction models. They
> are completely different. In Oracle reads never block writes and writes
> never block reads and there are an infinite number of row-level locks.
> Lock escalation does not exist.
>
> Finally, in spite of marketing types naming things to help sell them,
> the fact is that SQL Server's Enterprise Edition is approximately
> equal to Oracle's Standard Edition. Oracle's Enterprise Edition contains
> essentially nothing but features SQL Server does not offer. Only the
> name "Enterprise " is the same.
>
> Feel free to contact me off-line if you wish as I have no interest in
> fueling the inevitable name-calling any further than I already have.
> Also feel free to visit my web site "Morgan's Library" at www.psoug.org.
> --
> Daniel A. Morgan
> http://www.psoug.org
> damorgan@x.wash ington.edu
> (replace x with u to respond)[/color]

[Tony Rogerson]

Re: SQL Server 2005 vs Oracle

What about the time differential in a person actually doing something - it
takes a lot longer to fart about running queries in a DOS window then it
does using a nice feature rich UI.

Your comment here really does show you are class room bound.

There is more to this that just installing the box, there are DR strategies,
connectivity issues arrising from clients being on Active Directory and your
box being on something else, your software needs to work with a different
set of db access drivers.

The last thing a company needs is to start implementing different vendor
databases, unless the plan is to migrate - skill set differences are high on
the database products themselves, staffing costs finding a level of
expertise in both products is high, you'd probably have to have multiple
staff because you will stretch to find real experts in both competancies.

--
Tony Rogerson
SQL Server MVP
http://sqlserverfaq.com - free video tutorials

"DA Morgan" <damorgan@psoug .org> wrote in message
news:1144364223 .213063@yasure. drizzle.com...[color=blue]
> Hugo Kornelis wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Moving to a new platform is costly. You lose lots of productivity
>> attending courses or studying books.[/color]
>
> The average time it takes competent (the operative word here being
> competent) Windows admins to learn Linux or most flavours of UNIX
> sufficient to work with a database product whether Oracle or Sybase
> or whatever) is less than a week.
>
> Oracle on any flavor of UNIX is identical to Oracle on Windows once
> the initial installation is completed. The only skill required after
> that is minor variations of basic DOS navigation skills.
>
> If you were talking about moving an entire enterprise I would agree
> with you. But one or two database servers. I'd come in and do it in a
> single day and so would many consultants.
> --
> Daniel A. Morgan
> http://www.psoug.org
> damorgan@x.wash ington.edu
> (replace x with u to respond)[/color]

[DA Morgan]

Re: SQL Server 2005 vs Oracle

Hugo Kornelis wrote:[color=blue]
> On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 15:57:05 -0700, DA Morgan wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Hugo Kornelis wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Moving to a new platform is costly. You lose lots of productivity
>>> attending courses or studying books.[/color]
>> The average time it takes competent (the operative word here being
>> competent) Windows admins to learn Linux or most flavours of UNIX
>> sufficient to work with a database product whether Oracle or Sybase
>> or whatever) is less than a week.[/color]
> (snip)
>
> Hi DA,
>
> I refered to the cost of moving to another database platform, ie someone
> familiar with SQL Server moving to Oracle, or someone familiar with
> Oracle moving to SQL Server.[/color]

Sorry I misunderstood. Changing platforms can be expensive. But it
seemed to me, from the OP's question, that they were not considering
a change but rather an initial platform.
--
Daniel A. Morgan

http://www.psoug.org

damorgan@x.wash ington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)

[DA Morgan]

Re: SQL Server 2005 vs Oracle

Doug wrote:[color=blue]
> oh spare me. sarbanes-oxley isn't going to tell you what db to run.[/color]

No. But the auditor that signs off on your financial statement is going
to tell you that if a DBA or System Administrator can make unaudited
changes they will refuse to sign. I saw that happen with a public
company here in Seattle last year. You've never seen such a scramble
in your life. The replatformed in 3 weeks.

The issue is not which product ... but rather the auditing and security
provided by the product. SQL Server, or perhaps more correctly Windows,
just isn't there yet.

There is a reason most large corporate line-of-business apps run on some
flavour of UNIX. It isn't just a desire to waste money.
--
Daniel A. Morgan

http://www.psoug.org

damorgan@x.wash ington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)