we are planning to buy a server for our database system..for that we r
comparing 2 options in oracle 8 and ms-sqlserver 2000...if someone
could tell us which one would be better for us...i'll be thankfull...
what we want to know what are the better features of one over the
other...so that it could help us analize both the servers..

thanks and regards

Anurag Pandey

Don't buy Oracle 8 as Oracle will begin desupport at the end of this year.
If you are going to go Oracle either go with 9i (version 9.2) or wait a
bit for 10i.

No one that knows anything about relational database products could
possibly give you an intelligent recommendation based on what you have
posted. Here, in no particular order, are the first questions that come to
mind.

1. What platform and operating system experience in your organization?
Windows or UNIX?
2. How many users? a dozen or ten thousand?
3. What security requirements?
4. How much data? megabytes or terabytes?
5. Uptime requirements? Can you tolerate being down one day per year? One
day per month?
6. How many transactions and of what size?
7. What are you storing? numbers or full-length movies?
8. What in-house expertise do you have with either of these products?
9. How much money do you have in your budget for training?
10. Do you have or do you expect to obtain expert SysAdmin and DBA
expertise?
11. Do you need stand-by capabilities? Replication?

My personal feeling (tongue firmly planted in cheek) is that you should go
with either MS Access or 3x5 cards as your question indicates so little
knowledge of the field you'll likely fail with any product you choose.

Also, unless your point is to start a flame war asking this question at
c.d.ms-sqlserver will get you as predictable an answer as asking it at
c.d.oracle.server. Are you looking for objective advice or just "we like
what we know best"?

Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/extinfo/certprog/oad/oad_crs.asp

MS SQL is a very fine product that can match oracle in all levels of
performance. Its features, however, falls a little short vs Oracle. For
example, PL/SQL is object oriented while T-SQL is not. Furthermore, MS SQL's
OLAP is very basic compared to Oracle's.

Having said all this, MS SQL probably has every feature you need in a RDBMS at
a MUCH lower price. You really can't go wrong with it unless you need a
specific feature that Oracle offers which others do not (and there are a very
few).

Finally, I believe MS SQL has much brighter future than Oracle. MS SQL.net (the
next version of MS SQL) will probably be a Oracle killer. If you combine this
with the fact that Windows 2003 will legitimately challenge Unix in stabilty
and features, you have a receipe for a RDBMS market takeover by MS SQL.

Not debating anything you said ... but as the OP didn't give even a clue as to what
the database would be used for how can you possibly feel comfortable making a
recommendation? It might well be that both products are bad choices and the OP
would be better off with a 32 CPU MPP Teradata machine.

I would suggest hesitancy in making recommendations when you don't know the
application to which it will be put.

Daniel Morgan

Anurag,

I think Daniel has actually covered most of the relevant points, but I'd
like to add some minor points ...

Both Oracle and SQL Server are probably going to be able to handle whatever
it is you are planning to do. For example, Amazon.com uses Oracle while
Dell.com uses SQL Server. Both of these sites deal with very high
transactional levels daily, and I seriously doubt that your application is
going to be matching the requirements of either Amazon or Dell.

One advantage that Oracle has over SQL Server is that SQL Server absolutely
requires a Windows operating system. If you do not want to be tied to
Windows and Microsoft, then don't use SQL Server. Oracle runs on just about
any platform that is out there.

However if you are willing to be tied to a Windows OS, a well-tuned SQL
Server application will out-perform a well-tuned Oracle application. But
keep in mind that the probability that you will be pushing the limits of
either SQL Server or Oracle is very small, so while the "raw speed" of SQL
Server on Windows is greater than Oracle, that is almost certainly an
irrelevant consideration.

Personally, my suggestion as to which database to go with is real simple ...
does your organization have greater expertise with Oracle or with SQL
Server. Go with the one where your strengths lie. While both are enterprise
level RDBMS's, there are significant architectural differences between them,
and a skilled, knowledgeable Oracle developer is likely to make a mess of a
SQL Server application, just as a skilled, knowledgeable SQL Server
developer is likely to make a mess of an Oracle application.

Bottom line ... don't be concerned with the "features" of each unless you
expect to have to handle the volume of Amazon or Dell. Either can handle
your workload. Be more concerned with whether you have the expertise to use
the features in either product.

-------------------------------------------
BP Margolin
Please reply only to the newsgroups.
When posting, inclusion of SQL (CREATE TABLE ..., INSERT ..., etc.) which
can be cut and pasted into Query Analyzer is appreciated.

news:7be8fe69.0302102056.55959d41@posting.google.com...

Hi

As an Ingres DBA (which is of course a totally different database and not an
option in your decision) I also would like to respond.
Having done as well an Oracle course as an SQL Server course I was
astonished about the standard DataBaseAdministration support/features SQL
Server offers. They are amazing. Almost everything a DBA would like to be
assisted in has been taken care of.
Books On Line (Kind of help feature) is extremely well.

Of course, not everything (in the maintenance) is perfect or the way you
would like to have, but there has been taken care of. A situation what
Oracle can't say.

I can't talk about developing issues. I can't talk about price isues (I
don't know anything about it concerning Oracle or SQL Server) I only speak
about "daily DBA operations".
And in that aspect SQL Server realy is outstanding.

Bye,

Arno de Jong, The Netherlands.

"Anurag Pandey" <anu...@teri.res.in> schreef in bericht
news:7be8fe69.0302102056.55959d41@posting.google.com...

Not to in any way influence anyone ... but check these out.

http://tahiti.oracle.com
http://docs.oracle.com
http://otn.oracle.com
http://technet.oracle.com

You won't live long enough if to read through all of the materials.

Both products have a huge amount of resource material available.

Daniel Morgan

Thanks Morgan,Jong,Margolin and JinJJa
...
I m thank full to u for u'r responses...
I must tell u here that in my staff i hv experts in oracle who r
working on oracle 8 and 9i...
the new application which we r goin to develope(for which i was
enquiring)is a client server kind of an application with not very high
volume of data..
the reason we considered sequel server 2000 was the price issue and
wanted to find out on what areas will we gain if we go for sequel 2000
and what r the areas which will disappoint us..

thanks and regards
Anurag

Simple 80/20 analysis, and you did a fine job JinJJa. Bravo.

LB
"The sign of a healthy mind is knowing when to close it." (P.K. Cheskin)

However, it's fair to point out that the 80/20 rule was used.

So:  If you're planning a 500Gb database with 2000 concurrent users, requiring 99.9% uptime 24x7,
I'd think real hard before deciding to use MS SQL Server.  Microsoft just isn't there, compared to
Oracle on UNIX... yet.  As others have pointed out, they're moving in that direction.  (And some of
this is related to issues with Windows or Intel hardware maturity, not just SQL Server itself.)

<news:3E492AF0.D2CC8C27@exesolutions.com>...