Oracle VS SQL Server - Which is best to back end ?
Alex Stevens
on this group, so I'd appreciate any views that the group have as VB
Developers.
I've been asked to make a comparison between Oracle / SQLS for a
specification we're writing for a system which is too great for Access,
(poor network infrastructure on site). So the solution is for a
client/server system.
Point to note: The volumes of data will be too great for Access, but
probably at the lower end of the scale for a true client/server back end
database.
The company contracted to support IT at the firm, will only support Oracle
back-ends, and will not hear of SQL Server being installed. The main client
however will listen to any argument for the use SQLS with VB.
I would prefer to use SQL Server, as I always feel more at home with
Microsoft products (Technet support, big on-line communities), by my
knowledge of any comparison with Oracle is nil.
I would appreciate any of your views regarding this dilemma.
Many Thanks
Alex Stevens, England
Robert Vabo
The documentation is very good. in oracle the documentation is poor. Not
even the examples in the documentation work.
When writing eg. Procs it is much more easy to use SQLServer if you are
going to use Dynamic SQL statements. Oracle is "heavy".
Answers on questions in the newsgroups comes much quicker in the SQLServer
news groups.
Robert :-)
"Alex Stevens" <al...@matrixinfotech.co.uk> skrev i melding
news:RO3t5.6084$pi.30098@NewsReader...
Jim Egan
was sent to the cited author.]
You should look at Sybase Adaptive Server Anywhere (ASA). It is
positioned between Access and SQL Server, but much closer to SQL Server.
It requires little to no DBA support or tuning in production. I have
used it on mission critical applications for 32 users and the database
size was 4GB+. There are many other installations with larger numbers of
users and database size. Performance is comparable to SQL Server and
the price is lower. Of course it is a lot lower than Oracle. ASA will
also run as a standalone database, client, or server on a wide range of
platforms from Window 98 to Sun Solaris. Try doing that with MS SQL
Server.
The Sybase online newsgroups were rated number one last year by
InfoWorld. The SQL Anywhere (ASA) newsgroup was specifically noted as
providing excellent support. It can be found at
sybase.public.sqlanywhere.general.
--
Jim Egan [TeamSybase]
Houston, TX
http://www.eganomics.com
Sybase Developers Network
http://sdn.sybase.com/sdn/mec/mec_home.stm
Duncan Hodson
> even the examples in the documentation work.
I have to disagree with this. My last job was using Oracle, and i'm now
using SQL server, and i have to say the documentation with Oracle is superb.
I can only say that sql server's books online is average and lacks the
quality of oracle's. Where the sql server docs say "you can't do this",
oracle's would say "you can't do this, but you can try this other thing".
:-)
>
> When writing eg. Procs it is much more easy to use SQLServer if you are
> going to use Dynamic SQL statements. Oracle is "heavy".
>
Nah, they're about the same. Oracle 8 has a PL/SQL (procedure) debugger
built in, and i've yet to find one in sql server.
Perhaps it's the amount of time i've been exposed to Oracle, but i'd rather
be using that than SQL server. It IS more expensive tho. Oracle tech
support BTW is the best i've ever spoken to out of all the products i've
been involved with.
Ta
Duncan
Uri Klil-Hahoresh
say it comes from winNT magazine...) can give you some point of view of the
ongoing development of SQLserver:
2. ========== HOT OFF THE PRESS ==========
(contributed by Paul Thurrott, thur...@win2000mag.com)
* SQL SERVER SHATTERS PERFORMANCE RECORDS
One detail that came out of Bill Gates' keynote address during the
Windows 2000 (Win2K) launch was the announcement that Microsoft's
upcoming SQL Server 2000 product had just set the world record in the
industry-standard TPC-C benchmark, which measures database server
performance. SQL Server 2000 set the new record on a 12-system Compaq
configuration running Win2K.
Previous to the Win2K/SQL Server 2000 tandem, the record holder was
Oracle 8i running on a 96-processor clustered Solaris system, which
scored 135,815 tpmC. Using SQL Server 2000, Windows 2000 Advanced
Server (Win2K AS), and 12 8-processor Compaq ProLiant servers, Compaq
and Microsoft scored 227,079 tpmC, which is a whopping 68 percent
improvement over the prior record. This score represents a volume 575
times larger than the combined transaction volumes of Amazon.com and
eBay. For more information, go to
http://www.wininformant.com/display.asp?ID=2582.
Best regards
Uri, ISRAEL
"Alex Stevens" <al...@matrixinfotech.co.uk> wrote in message
news:RO3t5.6084$pi.30098@NewsReader...
Mujahid
What matters is which one of these is most applicable to our on going
projects.
Oracle has been on the market for a lot longer than SQL S and probably
richer in terms of tackling conventional developer problems.
>> Point to note: The volumes of data will be too great for Access, but
probably at the lower end of the scale for a true client/server back end
database.
Oracle costs a lot more than SQL Server and scales up higher too.
If the volumn of your data is at the lower end of the scale then SQL is
sufficient (and cheaper <g>)
When developing applications on a Microsoft Platform, as a VB Developer, I
feel very comfortable staying with Microsoft Technologies.
SQL Server should be relativly easier to install and maintain.
One advantage of Oracle is that it can run on platforms other than NT. like
Unix for example.
But since we have not done any development on Unix, we do not see it as a
delibrating point for us.
However it may not be in your case and you might want to consider this
point.
A lot of people I know who have worked on both Oracle and SQL Server tell me
that PL SQL is much more powerful that T SQL.
Oracle clusters better than SQL S. but can anyone point out an equalent of
DTS and OLAP in Oracle ?
Surly the more advanced and experienced developer can list out a lot more
detailed differences.
My best bet would be stick with what I know best and the tools in which I
can give my best output.
Feeling comfortable developing in a particular language or tool is a
significant factor.
--
Mujahid Wazir
IQura Technologies Pvt. Ltd
Laski
Couple of responses regarding Oracle's documentation.
I have used Oracle 8i as well as SQL Server 7/2000. These things stand
out:
1. Installing Oracle 8i - First time I installed - It took me 3.5 hours
and then my computer blue screened.
Put more memory (increased from 128Megs to 384 megs) and was
able to install.
Try to create a schema from the Enterprise manager - could never
use it - had to go to command prompt and do it the "old-fashioned" way -
dont know why the UIs are provided.
UIs are slow too.
Compare to SQL Server - easy to install - register a SQL Server and
start using enterprise manager - no hassles.
2. Documentation - SQL Server Books online is the best ever
Documentation on a product I have seen. After using Oracle technet - I now
am an expert in coining keywords for HTML search:-))
3. On Oracle's positive side - I must say the XML integration and java
enabled programming is pretty cool. I enjoyed writing stuff for implementing
these.
In SQL Servers defense - I must say that you can write whole
programs in the stored procedures, T-SQL is strong. And so is PL/SQL.
BUT what lacks is that I can write a Select in a t-sql stored proc.
and return a rowset.
As a developer I rather use SQL server - I need not be a DBA to implement a
SQL Server DB.
No offense to anyone here:-))
laski...]
Duncan Hodson <jer...@gamesinferno.com> wrote in message
news:aJ5t5.8649$6A2.5...@nnrp4.clara.net...
Wolfgang Hummel
Support (for registered user)
(++)Oracle : very good and fast, whole error database in web
(-) Microsoft : bad and expensive !
Administration of the database :
(-)Oracle : in V8 better than in V7, but a little bit complex
(+)SQL Server: Less complex
database programming:
(++) Oracle: PL/SQL or Java; better error handling, better trigger concept,
global session variables, cascade delete, ...
(-) SQL-Server: T-SQL, only "after statement"- trigger, no global session
variables, very bad error handling (!), no cascade delete...
Installation:
(-)Oracle:not so easy like sql-server
(++)sql-server : easy.
Requirements:
(-)Oracle: If you install the java machine, you should have about 128 MB (min).
Oracle needs more power than sql-server (but you get also more!)
(+)sql-server: Less requirements for a standard installation.
Clients:
(o)Oracle : via ODBC (free driver from oracle) or if you use seagate or delphi,
there is a native driver, you need Net8 installed on clients and server.
(+)SQL-Server: same, but you need no database network-protocol
If you use the database only for storing data (without any database programming
like triggers, stored procs) take sql-server because it's easy to install and
administrate.
But If you want to transfer any application logic inside the database use Oracle
because the trigger-support is much better, the error handling, you can use
java,...
If you migrate from oracle to sql-server it is like first driving a Porsche
(oracle) and later a bike (sql-server).
But if you need a cheap solution:
Take MSDE (the "light"-version of sql-server, it's free, but has some limits,
eg. 2GB per database file, ...)
bye
Wolfgang
Duncan Hodson
hours and then my computer blue screened.
Odd that, because i installed Oracle 7 (and later 8) on my 32mb machine at
home. Had problems installing at work when the oracle cd was in a cd drive
on the server at work, but cured this by mapping a network drive from my
machine to the cd player.
> Try to create a schema from the Enterprise manager - could
never
> use it - had to go to command prompt and do it the "old-fashioned" way -
> dont know why the UIs are provided.
> UIs are slow too
Oracle storage manager - create a new datafile (or more than one on
different drive arrays).
Oracle schema manager - create a new tablespace that uses this datafile (or
more than one to improve performance).
Oracle security manager - create a new user for this tablespace and grant
some privelidges.
The only time i ever had to resort to using SQL to create anything was when
creating a large initial database (so i could create all required datafiles
on disks and join these all into one tablespace. I find that the UI's are
of a similar speed to SQL Server's.
> Compare to SQL Server - easy to install - register a SQL Server and
> start using enterprise manager - no hassles.
True. SQL Server is extremely easy to setup. Took me far less time to
create my first test database than in Oracle.
> 2. Documentation - SQL Server Books online is the best ever
> Documentation on a product I have seen. After using Oracle technet - I now
> am an expert in coining keywords for HTML search:-))
Today's niggle with SQL BOL will be with error message 2739, which gives
"Over time, more information about error messages either documented in this
section or not documented in this section may become available" - this is
totally unacceptable for a production database package. This is to do with
the fact that "The text, ntext, and image data types are invalid for local
variables.", that in itself is very poor. Still trying to find a workaround
for this.
> 3. On Oracle's positive side - I must say the XML integration and java
> enabled programming is pretty cool. I enjoyed writing stuff for
implementing
> these.
> In SQL Servers defense - I must say that you can write whole
> programs in the stored procedures, T-SQL is strong. And so is PL/SQL.
> BUT what lacks is that I can write a Select in a t-sql stored
proc.
> and return a rowset.
Got round that by creating a temporary table in a procedure (CREATE TABLE
#MYTABLE...) and then at the end of the procedure do a SELECT <COLUMNNAMES>
FROM #MYTABLE to return the resultset to the ASP page i'm writing.
Unfortunately the table includes a TEXT datatype which is where i'm
currently stumped.
> No offense to anyone here:-))
None taken at all :-) It's good to talk.
Duncan
David Kaye
" I've been asked to make a comparison between Oracle / SQLS for a
" specification we're writing for a system which is too great for Access,
" (poor network infrastructure on site).
My experience has been that Oracle is expensive, hard to install, and its
stored procedures are limited, thus creating a heavy transaction load. I
find SQL Server a snap to install and configure, the T-SQL language is
robust and allows some incredible procedures. Now that I think of it, SQL
Server is probably one of the cheapest databases on the market, thus
making it a good value for the money when combined with its strengths.
Plus, I have a hard time trusting a company which sole passion in life is
being the "anti-Microsoft". Sorry, show me what you're doing that's
positive, not what you're doing against Microsoft. Also, the original
release of Oracle 8 was a buggy mess.
--
(C) 2000 "There's more to life than news, weather, and sports"
David Kaye -- slogan of KGO-TV, creator of "happy talk" news
Richard Cane
That result was not recognised by the TPC council. It was declared
illegal. IBM have since smashed those figures with a legal test.
"Uri Klil-Hahoresh" <uri.klil...@compaq.com> wrote in message
news:8p2qd9$nle$1...@mailint03.im.hou.compaq.com...
Neil Pike
Alex - they're both good products, but if changing the support company isn't an
option then you'll have to go with Oracle by the sounds of it.
Neil Pike MVP/MCSE. Protech Computing Ltd
Reply here - no email
SQL FAQ (484 entries) see
forumsb.compuserve.com/gvforums/UK/default.asp?SRV=MSDevApps (faqrtf.zip - L7
- SQL Public)
or http://www.ntfaq.com/Section.cfm?sectionID=34
or www.sqlserverfaq.com
or www.mssqlserver.com/faq
Anthony Mandic
> I've been asked to make a comparison between Oracle / SQLS for a
> specification we're writing for a system which is too great for Access,
> (poor network infrastructure on site). So the solution is for a
> client/server system.
If you have a poor network, moving to a client/server model
will only make you suffer. But you are correct, this is a flame
bait type of question. So you can expect to get biggoted responses
like the clowns who claimed MS SQL Server was more expensive than
Oracle or that Oracle had a great developer environment.
> The company contracted to support IT at the firm, will only support Oracle
> back-ends, and will not hear of SQL Server being installed. The main client
> however will listen to any argument for the use SQLS with VB.
I'm not sure why you posted to a Sybase newsgroup then, but I
would consider finding another outsourcer. Since when isn't the
customer always right?
> I would prefer to use SQL Server, as I always feel more at home with
> Microsoft products (Technet support, big on-line communities), by my
> knowledge of any comparison with Oracle is nil.
For a smallish system, look at either mySQL or Sybase Adaptive
Server Anywhere (ASA). The other database systems you're considering
(MS SQL Server, Oracle and possibly Sybase ASE) may be too large
for your needs.
-am
Michael D. Long
When the customer is a newbie who doesn't
have a clue...
Sorry, I just couldn't resist. But seriously,
not all management companies rake it in on
an hourly basis. If the outfit won a contract
based on a fixed bid, then they can't afford
to waste resources on technologies outside
the scope of their contract.
--
Michael D. Long
http://extremedna.homestead.com
"Anthony Mandic" <am@_lumina.com.au> wrote in message
news:39B5CDEE.B86093EB@_lumina.com.au...
Anthony Mandic
>
> When the customer is a newbie who doesn't have a clue...
Or the outsourcer hires graduates who don't have a
clue. I recently had some fun experiences teaching
CSC* how to do their job.
> Sorry, I just couldn't resist. But seriously,
> not all management companies rake it in on
> an hourly basis. If the outfit won a contract
> based on a fixed bid, then they can't afford
> to waste resources on technologies outside
> the scope of their contract.
Don't know about your neck of the woods, but down
under, EDS, IBM, CSC et al. have a reputation for
sniffing around for project jobs to charge extra
for - so that they can have their cake and eat it
too.
-am
*CSC = Completely Stupid Cretins
IBM = Idiots, Boofheads & Morons
EDS = Extra Dopes Supplied
Steve Long
IMHO, the IT service firm is correct. Ease of installation, setup, and
documentation is a minor consideration compared to factors regarding real
database applications.
First, SQL*Server 7 only runs on NT Server. NT Server itself is not
sufficiently stable or reliable for an enterprise application. It is
sufficient for non-critical, departmental apps (yeah, i've hear all of the
hype about it too!)
Second, SQL*Server does not provide the same level of security and recovery
as Oracle.
Third, scalability, compatibility, and expandability are much better with
Oracle.
Perhaps you should listen to the rationale of the company retained to
support the systems. They may have lived through some experiences which
lead them to the position they hold. I agree with them!
Alex Stevens <al...@matrixinfotech.co.uk> wrote in message
news:RO3t5.6084$pi.30098@NewsReader...
A B
four years in each company, I must say that this response regarding
SQL-Server and Windows NT is laughable.
If you don't believe that NT is scalable and reliable and a suitable
database platform, then why do ORACLE sell more on NT than any other
platform?
Why do all these .COM companies
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/productinfo/P58874.htm run SQL-Server on NT? I
can also point you to (and have visited) major banks running critical
real-time trading apps on SQL-Server, plus Power Stations, Country and City
Elections (eg. the election for London Major most recently), plus quite a
few hospital systems running care systems off Microsoft SQL-Server. You
can't get much more critical when lives are at stake.
As for security, check-out this:
http://www.radium.ncsc.mil/tpep/epl/entries/TTAP-CSC-EPL-00-001.html The NSA
just approved SQL-2000 C2 certification.Whilst you're there, take a look at
the other vendors that have this stamp at
http://www.radium.ncsc.mil/tpep/epl/entries/TTAP-CSC-EPL-00-001.html ...
Where's Oracle8? (you've got 3 months to go before Oracle7's de-supported).
Reliability : if you look at the facts - Gartner did a very good assessment
on reliability recently - you'll see that only 20% of downtime is due to O/S
failures. Together with driver verification, system file protection and a
whole host of other things in Win2K, people are running five 9's today. In
fact, I've met customers who've been running on 3 nine's -- remember that's
only EIGHT hours of downtime per year -- on NT4 quite happily. Most of this
reliability comes down to people and process more than the software... and
Win2K DataCentre Server covers these challenges off with things like the
Microsoft Operations Framework, and 24x7xSingle-ownership of the problem
between Microsoft and 3rd party vendor.
The other thing to remember is that Stratus, who do a large portion of the
mission critical systems at airports are also selling old and new customers
alike a truly fault-tolerant system for running SQL-Server and NT (they keep
the CPU's in lockstep), you might want to check them out at
http://www.stratus.com/
Sounds like the company who are contracted to do IT support either don't
have the skills in SQL-Server, are handsomely charging a fortune for keeping
Oracle up and running, or are need of some convincing. For all these
occurrences, I'd encourage you to give MS a call - I'm sure they'd love to
assist in helping out -- e.g.. proving it can, has and will do the job over
Oracle at much lower initial and lower total cost.
The number's 0870 6010100 in England.
Best Regards.
>
> Second, SQL*Server does not provide the same level of security and
recovery
> as Oracle.
>
> Third, scalability, compatibility, and expandability are much better with
> Oracle.
>
> Perhaps you should listen to the rationale of the company retained to
> support the systems. They may have lived through some experiences which
> lead them to the position they hold. I agree with them!
>
> Alex Stevens <al...@matrixinfotech.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:RO3t5.6084$pi.30098@NewsReader...
Steve Long
Sun...hmmm...why would Micrsoft do that???
"A B" <A...@b.com> wrote in message news:u8V1sxbKAHA.436@cpmsnbbsa07...
Greg D. Moore
Steve Long wrote:
>
> and it is reported that Microsoft runs it's backend systems on Oracle and
> Sun...hmmm...why would Micrsoft do that???
>
Reported by whom?
Microsoft has generally been very true to using their own products. In
fact, some of their white papers can be very interesting and
surprisingly honest in their content in issues their internal MIS has
encountered when upgrading or deploying products written by Microsoft.
Neil Pike
Apart from Hotmail that still runs partly on Unix I'm not aware of other current instances of this....
> > and it is reported that Microsoft runs it's backend systems on Oracle and
> > Sun...hmmm...why would Micrsoft do that???
Neil Pike MVP/MCSE. Protech Computing Ltd
Reply here - no email
SQL FAQ (484 entries) see
http://forumsb.compuserve.com/gvforums/UK/default.asp?SRV=MSDevApps
(faqxxx.zip in lib 7)
or www.ntfaq.com/Articles/Index.cfm?DepartmentID=800
or www.sqlserverfaq.com
or www.mssqlserver.com/faq
Phil
come in the mail (Probably Info Week).
According to the article, Microsoft was unable to duplicate the
complexity and reliability of a Unix/Oracle environment in a company
that they aquired with Windows 2000 and SQL Server. I don't recall
the article mentioning the aquisition (company).
IMHO, Oracle 8.1.6 and later is a better RDBMS, but I like SQL Server
2000 for the DTS, Analysis Services (including data mining), and SQL
Server's scheduler. I use both products in conjunction - I just don't
use SQL Server's RDBMS.
I'd not expect Oracle 8.1.7 (available for shipping any day now) to
change matters much. Oracle 9i, though, due in about a year (?) may
change things.
On Mon, 02 Oct 2000 18:09:10 +0100, Neil Pike
<10057...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> Apart from Hotmail that still runs partly on Unix I'm not aware of other current instances of this....
>
> > > and it is reported that Microsoft runs it's backend systems on Oracle and
>> > Sun...hmmm...why would Micrsoft do that???
>
admira...@my-deja.com
"Steve Long" <nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Alex,
>
> IMHO, the IT service firm is correct. Ease of installation, setup,
and
> documentation is a minor consideration compared to factors regarding
real
> database applications.
>
> First, SQL*Server 7 only runs on NT Server. NT Server itself is not
> sufficiently stable or reliable for an enterprise application. It is
> sufficient for non-critical, departmental apps (yeah, i've hear all
of the
> hype about it too!)
Funny, but I would have thought that TPC benchmarks would qualify as
something more than hype. Non-Oracle Windows 2000 based configs hold
the top 6 spots on the TPC suite, last I checked. I'd suggest that a
reasonable person could only conclude this must imply something where
stability and scalability is concerned.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Neil Pike
can get the performance, just the pricing's too high.
> Funny, but I would have thought that TPC benchmarks would qualify as
> something more than hype. Non-Oracle Windows 2000 based configs hold
> the top 6 spots on the TPC suite, last I checked. I'd suggest that a
> reasonable person could only conclude this must imply something where
> stability and scalability is concerned.
Neil Pike MVP/MCSE. Protech Computing Ltd
Ilya Zvyagin
Steve Long wrote in message <8qtr70$ln6$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
>Second, SQL*Server does not provide the same level of security and recovery
>as Oracle.
Could you please tell me what did you mean here ?
Does ORACLE have any advantages in security and durability of
MSSQL or Sybase ASE ?
Steve Long
Ilya Zvyagin
Steve Long wrote in message <8ukm0m$c88$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
>> Could you please tell me what did you mean here ?
>> Does ORACLE have any advantages in security and durability of
>> MSSQL or Sybase ASE ?
>>
>yes
Yes, I thought you would say that. But what are they ?
eddy_frances
Oracle to be superior. Although, the functionality of both of these
databases are comparable, the real issue is support. I believe
support and the quality of those that support the product to be a
greater issue than whether the database is on the top 10 of the TPC
benchmarks.
By the way, unless your company is spending 10-50 million
dollars on a database hardware/software configuration and doing
several hundred thousand transactions a minute I would not worry about
TPC benchmark results. Both Microsoft and Oracle parade around with
these benchmarks but they mean very little unless your Yahoo or EBay.
Good luck on this never ending topic....
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
With Servers In California, Texas And Virginia - The Worlds Uncensored News Source
Chris Hohmann
news:OuhAYozFAHA.271@cppssbbsa04...
> A lot of people I know who have worked on both Oracle and SQL Server tell
me
> that PL SQL is much more powerful that T SQL.
> Oracle clusters better than SQL S. but can anyone point out an equalent of
> DTS and OLAP in Oracle ?
Oracle Database Utilities (Data Pump/SQL Loader)
http://otn.oracle.com/products/database/utilities/index.html
Oracle OLAP
http://otn.oracle.com/products/bi/olap/olap.html
Hans Forbrich
> "Mujahid" <muj...@iqura.net> wrote in message
> news:OuhAYozFAHA.271@cppssbbsa04...
>> A lot of people I know who have worked on both Oracle and SQL Server tell
> me
>> that PL SQL is much more powerful that T SQL.
A very common mistake in RDBMS programming include using ANY procedural
language where pure SQL will accomplish the task. I have seen many
instances of T-SQL and PL/SQL that were totally unnecessary - and both will
be considerably slower than pure SQL if the ask can be accomplished in pure
SQL.
Due to >internal< differences in implementation of the SQL language, it is
not generally a good idea to do a one-on-one comparison of T-SQL and
PL/SQL.
>> Oracle clusters better than SQL S. but can anyone point out an equalent
>> of DTS and OLAP in Oracle ?
>
> Oracle Database Utilities (Data Pump/SQL Loader)
> http://otn.oracle.com/products/database/utilities/index.html
Realize that Oracle natively includes ablity to define tables based on
external files (such as CLF exports from Excel) and 'heterogeneous
services' allowing data to be sourced and included in transactions even
when not stored in Oracle.
>
> Oracle OLAP
> http://otn.oracle.com/products/bi/olap/olap.html
Note that the OLAP option in Oracle is frequently overkill. In my
experience, many reports and analyses only require things like Racle's
Advanced Grouping capability - from their docco
"... CUBE and ROLLUP to produce sub-totals and crosstab reports easily and
efficiently using a single SQL statement." and "Analytic functions ...
Includes rank, moving average, and ratio-to-report."
Based on discussion in comp.database.oracle.server, and referencing Oracle's
"New Features" doc for Oracle9i, these are available in Personal, Standard
One, Standard and Enterprise Edition
A decent reference to learn these is O'Reilly's "Mastering Oracle SQL"
/Hans
Erland Sommarskog
> A very common mistake in RDBMS programming include using ANY procedural
> language where pure SQL will accomplish the task. I have seen many
> instances of T-SQL and PL/SQL that were totally unnecessary - and both
> will be considerably slower than pure SQL if the ask can be accomplished
> in pure SQL.
this is not really true, although it may be a more a poor choice of words
than an actual misunderstanding.
If you say
CREATE PROCEDURE get_some_data @par1 int,
@par2 datetime, ... AS
SELECT ....
FROM ...
You are certainly using more than "pure SQL". There are several reasons
why you package things in stored procedures. Security is one reason, but
you also do it for performance, as this increase the use of cached plans.
Of course, if you start to do iterations and take one row at a time
for some procession, for something you can have done in one SQL statement,
you are losing performance. Then again, far from all T-SQL procedures
include iterations, still they can be quite long, if they include complex
updates and calculations.
--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esq...@sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/productdoc/2000/books.asp
Ed prochak
> Hans Forbrich (forb...@yahoo.net) writes:
[]
Why are you guys resurrecting a thread that stopped 4years ago??