ORACLE or SQL SERVER (MS) ?

[English Teacher]

Which would be a more useful relational database server to learn
nowadays: MS SQL SERVER or ORACLE?

Thanks!

[David Portas]

Re: ORACLE or SQL SERVER (MS) ?

By "useful" I take it you mean which has the best career prospects.

Both are leading, industry standard RDBMSs with good career opportunities.
Oracle is the acknowledged market leader. SQLServer is sometimes claimed to
have the fastest growing market share.

It's often said that Oracle database professionals earn more than their
SQLServer counterparts. Salary surveys and advertised opportunities (at
least the ones I see in the UK) tend to back this up, although obviously
salary levels are subject to many other factors as well.

The decision on which is most useful to you will depend on your
qualifications, experience, intended career and the opportunities available
in the area and industry in which you would like to work. Research job
opportunities in your areas of interest to help you decide. Unfortunately in
the IT industry the only constant is change - the market could look very
different in 2 years time and nobody can predict it with any degree of
certainty.

(off-topic cross-postings ignored)

--
David Portas
------------
Please reply only to the newsgroup
--

"English Teacher" <EnglishTeacher @ModernEnglish. com> wrote in message
news:b06436f6.0 310202251.15eec 0c@posting.goog le.com...[color=blue]
> Which would be a more useful relational database server to learn
> nowadays: MS SQL SERVER or ORACLE?
>
> Thanks![/color]

[John Bell]

Re: ORACLE or SQL SERVER (MS) ?

Hi

The choice of which database system to learn will to some extent be
determined on why you wish to learn it. In general there is a lot of
relational theory that is universal and writing good SQL and doing correct
design is not linked to the vendor of the database system. There will be
system specific features that will improve performance on a given RDBMS, but
the knowledge of how proprietary this is is important.

In general I think that SQL Server is the better system regarding ease of
setup and the hardware required to run the system and would therefore have
the edge, but if you are looking for multiplatform capabilities then Sybase,
DB2 or Oracle may be alternatives to consider.

John


"English Teacher" <EnglishTeacher @ModernEnglish. com> wrote in message
news:b06436f6.0 310202251.15eec 0c@posting.goog le.com...[color=blue]
> Which would be a more useful relational database server to learn
> nowadays: MS SQL SERVER or ORACLE?
>
> Thanks![/color]

[Daniel Morgan]

Re: ORACLE or SQL SERVER (MS) ?

English Teacher wrote:
[color=blue]
>Which would be a more useful relational database server to learn
>nowadays: MS SQL SERVER or ORACLE?
>
>Thanks!
>
>[/color]
If the choice is strictly academic and you have no commercial purpose in
min it really doesn't matter
so just get the one that costs you the least. Not sure if you can get
SQL Server for free but Oracle
can be downloaded for free from oracle.com and the full commercial CD
package purchased from
http://store.oracle.com for $39.95 USD.

If you have a commercial intent then choose the product that best meets
that goal. If you are looking
for industrial strenght security, stability, ability to run on Linux or
UNIX etc. that might lead you in one
direction. Other choices might lead you elsewhere.

But why on earth do you think posting this to rec.woodworking is a good
use of the usenet? Please
do not cross-post to irrelevant groups. I have taken the liberty to
remove them from this thread so as
not to continue the misuse.

--
Daniel Morgan

http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp

http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp

damorgan@x.wash ington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

[Robert C]

Re: ORACLE or SQL SERVER (MS) ?

If you want it EASY & quick - go with SQL Server

You like to read technical stuff & think & research & LEARN - go with Oracle
[color=blue][color=green]
>> ,rec.woodworkin g,rec.photo.dig ital,rec.photo. equipment.35mm[/color][/color]

Ahh...forgettab outit then ....do SQL Server....you'l l definitely have more
time for these hobbies...





"English Teacher" <EnglishTeacher @ModernEnglish. com> wrote in message
news:b06436f6.0 310202251.15eec 0c@posting.goog le.com...[color=blue]
> Which would be a more useful relational database server to learn
> nowadays: MS SQL SERVER or ORACLE?
>
> Thanks![/color]

[Daniel Morgan]

Re: ORACLE or SQL SERVER (MS) ?

Robert C wrote:
[color=blue]
>If you want it EASY & quick - go with SQL Server
>
>You like to read technical stuff & think & research & LEARN - go with Oracle
>
>
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>,rec.woodwor king,rec.photo. digital,rec.pho to.equipment.35 mm
>>>
>>>[/color][/color]
>
>Ahh...forgetta boutit then ....do SQL Server....you'l l definitely have more
>time for these hobbies...
>
>
>
>
>
>"English Teacher" <EnglishTeacher @ModernEnglish. com> wrote in message
>news:b06436f6. 0310202251.15ee c0c@posting.goo gle.com...
>
>[color=green]
>>Which would be a more useful relational database server to learn
>>nowadays: MS SQL SERVER or ORACLE?
>>
>>Thanks!
>>
>>[/color][/color]
I think one could make a reasoned argument that to do good work in SQL
Server also requires
a bit of heavy lifting. The fact that many don't bother to do it doesn't
mean that what they build
is anything other than mediocre.

--
Daniel Morgan

http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp

http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp

damorgan@x.wash ington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

[Noons]

Re: ORACLE or SQL SERVER (MS) ? (WARNING: TROLL ALERT!)

EnglishTeacher@ ModernEnglish.c om (English Teacher) wrote in message news:<b06436f6. 0310202251.15ee c0c@posting.goo gle.com>...[color=blue]
> Which would be a more useful relational database server to learn
> nowadays: MS SQL SERVER or ORACLE?[/color]


This poster is a well known troll. Reply at your own risk.

[Frank ess]

Re: ORACLE or SQL SERVER (MS) ? (WARNING: TROLL ALERT!)


"Noons" <wizofoz2k@yaho o.com.au> wrote in message
news:73e20c6c.0 310211331.5b22a 4e4@posting.goo gle.com...[color=blue]
> EnglishTeacher@ ModernEnglish.c om (English Teacher) wrote in message[/color]
news:<b06436f6. 0310202251.15ee c0c@posting.goo gle.com>...[color=blue][color=green]
> > Which would be a more useful relational database server to learn
> > nowadays: MS SQL SERVER or ORACLE?[/color]
>
>
> This poster is a well known troll. Reply at your own risk.[/color]

shhh

[Erland Sommarskog]

Re: ORACLE or SQL SERVER (MS) ?

Daniel Morgan (damorgan@x.was hington.edu) writes:[color=blue]
> Not sure if you can get SQL Server for free[/color]

Not completely, but there is a 120-day evaluation version available.
See item 6 on http://www.microsoft.com/sql/downloads/topdownloads.asp.



--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, sommar@algonet. se

Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at

http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/productdoc/2000/books.asp

[Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)]

Re: ORACLE or SQL SERVER (MS) ?


"Erland Sommarskog" <sommar@algonet .se> wrote in message
news:Xns941C298 86F12Yazorman@1 27.0.0.1...[color=blue]
> Daniel Morgan (damorgan@x.was hington.edu) writes:[color=green]
> > Not sure if you can get SQL Server for free[/color]
>
> Not completely, but there is a 120-day evaluation version available.
> See item 6 on http://www.microsoft.com/sql/downloads/topdownloads.asp.[/color]

And the developer's edition is now fairly cheap as I recall.

[color=blue]
>
>
>
> --
> Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, sommar@algonet. se
>
> Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinf...2000/books.asp[/color]

[Hulse]

Re: ORACLE or SQL SERVER (MS) ?

"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts @hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3f94fba3$ 0$246$ed9e5944@ reading.news.pi pex.net>...[color=blue]
> Hi
>
> The choice of which database system to learn will to some extent be
> determined on why you wish to learn it. In general there is a lot of
> relational theory that is universal and writing good SQL and doing correct
> design is not linked to the vendor of the database system. There will be
> system specific features that will improve performance on a given RDBMS, but
> the knowledge of how proprietary this is is important.
>
> In general I think that SQL Server is the better system regarding ease of
> setup and the hardware required to run the system and would therefore have[/color]

Actually when it comes to lowend hardware, Oracle and MSSQL are
more of an even heat. Both can be deployed on meagre hardware if your
thruput requirements are similarly meagre.
However, Oracle will probably scale much better should your needs
be more than trivial. Oracle runs on machines with as many as 105
cpus, Oracle has more transparent clustering, and MSSQL doesn't
support table/index partitioning.
Storage and memory requirements will be similar for both
products. You won't be able to get away with skimping on the disk
hardware just because it's a Microsoft database. OTOH, Oracle can run
on the same Dell/Compaq hardware that msSQL uses. Just run Linux
rather than Solaris.
[color=blue]
> the edge, but if you are looking for multiplatform capabilities then Sybase,
> DB2 or Oracle may be alternatives to consider.[/color]
[deletia]

[Hulse]

Re: ORACLE or SQL SERVER (MS) ?

Erland Sommarskog <sommar@algonet .se> wrote in message news:<Xns941C29 886F12Yazorman@ 127.0.0.1>...[color=blue]
> Daniel Morgan (damorgan@x.was hington.edu) writes:[color=green]
> > Not sure if you can get SQL Server for free[/color]
>
> Not completely, but there is a 120-day evaluation version available.
> See item 6 on http://www.microsoft.com/sql/downloads/topdownloads.asp.[/color]

It is quite easy to get free copies of Oracle. They will be
unlicensed of course. However, you will be free to install
and run them. They are not cripple-ware. They are the full
installation packs. So you can use Oracle 9.2 EE for NT or
Linux without limitation (barring SBA audits).

It seems odd that it would be harder to try a Microsoft
product than an Oracle one.

[Frank ess]

Re: ORACLE or SQL SERVER (MS) ?


"Hulse" <hulse_kevin@ya hoo.com> wrote in message
news:16926526.0 310211823.7aaf9 8d@posting.goog le.com...[color=blue]
> "John Bell" <jbellnewsposts @hotmail.com> wrote in message[/color]
news:<3f94fba3$ 0$246$ed9e5944@ reading.news.pi pex.net>...[color=blue][color=green]
> > Hi
> >
> > The choice of which database system to learn will to some extent be
> > determined on why you wish to learn it. In general there is a lot of
> > relational theory that is universal and writing good SQL and doing[/color][/color]
correct[color=blue][color=green]
> > design is not linked to the vendor of the database system. There will be
> > system specific features that will improve performance on a given RDBMS,[/color][/color]
but[color=blue][color=green]
> > the knowledge of how proprietary this is is important.
> >
> > In general I think that SQL Server is the better system regarding ease[/color][/color]
of[color=blue][color=green]
> > setup and the hardware required to run the system and would therefore[/color][/color]
have[color=blue]
>
> Actually when it comes to lowend hardware, Oracle and MSSQL are
> more of an even heat. Both can be deployed on meagre hardware if your
> thruput requirements are similarly meagre.
> However, Oracle will probably scale much better should your needs
> be more than trivial. Oracle runs on machines with as many as 105
> cpus, Oracle has more transparent clustering, and MSSQL doesn't
> support table/index partitioning.
> Storage and memory requirements will be similar for both
> products. You won't be able to get away with skimping on the disk
> hardware just because it's a Microsoft database. OTOH, Oracle can run
> on the same Dell/Compaq hardware that msSQL uses. Just run Linux
> rather than Solaris.
>[color=green]
> > the edge, but if you are looking for multiplatform capabilities then[/color][/color]
Sybase,[color=blue][color=green]
> > DB2 or Oracle may be alternatives to consider.[/color]
> [deletia][/color]

shhh

[Daniel Morgan]

Re: ORACLE or SQL SERVER (MS) ?

Erland Sommarskog wrote:
[color=blue]
>Daniel Morgan (damorgan@x.was hington.edu) writes:
>
>[color=green]
>>Not sure if you can get SQL Server for free
>>
>>[/color]
>
>Not completely, but there is a 120-day evaluation version available.
>See item 6 on http://www.microsoft.com/sql/downloads/topdownloads.asp.
>
>[/color]
Good to know. The free Oracle download is full feature and licensed for
30 days ... but it does run forever.

--
Daniel Morgan

http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp

http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp

damorgan@x.wash ington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

[John Bell]

Re: ORACLE or SQL SERVER (MS) ?

> Actually when it comes to lowend hardware, Oracle and MSSQL are[color=blue]
> more of an even heat. Both can be deployed on meagre hardware if your
> thruput requirements are similarly meagre.[/color]

I would disagree with that, although I have not done any benchmarks, my
experience of Oracle on the same windows platform is that SQL Server is that
SQL server is the more performant. When you start looking at the User tools
then Oracle with all the overhead and clunkiness of Java means that SQL
Server wins on productivity and reliability too.

I know there are good third party tools available that will level the score,
and IMO the need for these with Oracle is higher!
[color=blue]
> However, Oracle will probably scale much better should your needs
> be more than trivial. Oracle runs on machines with as many as 105
> cpus, Oracle has more transparent clustering, and MSSQL doesn't
> support table/index partitioning.[/color]

Well this was way beyond the scope of poster!!
[color=blue]
> Storage and memory requirements will be similar for both
> products. You won't be able to get away with skimping on the disk
> hardware just because it's a Microsoft database. OTOH, Oracle can run
> on the same Dell/Compaq hardware that msSQL uses. Just run Linux
> rather than Solaris.[/color]

Oracle on Linux would be a good choice. Whether the poster would want to
dual boot or buy another machine is different approach.
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
> > the edge, but if you are looking for multiplatform capabilities then[/color][/color]
Sybase,[color=blue][color=green]
> > DB2 or Oracle may be alternatives to consider.[/color]
> [deletia][/color]

John