At lease 10 difference between oracle 8i and sql server 2000?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : OpenKnowledge : One Thread

Can you mail me at lease 10 difference between oracle 8i and sql server 2000?

-- chandra sekhara reddy.m (chandumavuluri@rediffmail.com), November 07, 2001

Answers

Will mail you soon as possible.

-- SVR.ARVIND (svrarvind@ureach.com), December 31, 2001.

pl send the difference between oracle 8i and sql server 2000 more over advantage and disadvantage of oracle & sql Server

-- Sunil kumar (sunilkumar_v@hotmail.com), January 31, 2002.

I dont know the answer

-- Roopak kumar sahoo (roopak_4@yahoo.co.in), February 23, 2002.

plz mail me as soon as possable .. thanx

-- anna (anna_haroon@hotmail.com), April 07, 2002.

No idea..!Hungry to know about the fact..!

-- S.Prasad Panda (prasads_27@hotmail.com), April 23, 2002.


Security is high in Oracle. And it will work fine in any environments like UNIX, SOLARIES OR WINDOWS-NT. Where as SQL SERVER performs more on WINDOWS-NT only. There are certain futures which one will miss, if he uses SQL SERVER without Windiws-NT server.

Thanks.

-- Prasad Panda (prasad_panda@hotmail.com), April 24, 2002.


You Cannot connect the database which is running in the Windows95 from an NT Network.

-- Ravi (kayravi@rediffmail.com), July 04, 2002.

plz i want to difference between sql and oracle kindly help me.

-- asif khan (khanpk9@yahoo.com), July 10, 2002.

Plz I want too. thanks

-- pejetaji (ptajalla@hotmail.com), August 25, 2002.

what is the difrence betweem the SQL server and Oracol

-- Basma Tobia (gappynbr@msn.com), October 15, 2002.


what is the advantage and disadvantage of SQL server and Oracle

-- Nassir Gappy (gappynbr@msn.com), October 16, 2002.

SQL Server is usually easier to setup/configure, and get going - especially in terms of integrating into other Microsoft applications.

-- Sanjeev (sanjeev4uall@rediffmail.com), December 05, 2002.

What is the difference between MS SQL Server and Oracle??

-- Tanvir Hussain chatha (thchatha@hotmail.com), February 18, 2003.

1. Oracle runs on many platforms, SQL on Windows only 2. Oracle includes IFS (Internet File System), Java integration, SQL is more of a pure database 3. Oracle requires client install and setup (Not difficult, but very UNIX-like for Windows users) 4. SQL is #1 in Cost/Performance and overall Performance, although Oracle will refute that 5. Replication is much easier in SQL (I have been at clients where even the Oracle consultant couldn't get it working w/oracle) 6. Failover support in SQL is much, much easier 7. JDBC support is much better in Oracle, although Microsoft is working on it 8. ODBC support in both 9. SQL is ANSI-SQL '92 compliant, making it easier to convert to another ANSI compliant database, theoretically anyway (truth is every database has proprietary extensions). Oracle is generally more proprietary and their main goal is to keep their customers locked-in. 10. SQL natively supports ODBC, OLEDB, XML, XML Query, XML updates. Oracle natively supports proprietary connections, JDBC. Not sure about XML support though. 11. SQL Server is much easier to administrate, with GUI and command- line tools. Most of Oracle is command-line (Back in SQL 6.5 days I had a customer who was so proud that after a day's worth of work he had managed to script his database. I showed him how it was a 3 click operation in SQL ;-) 12. Oracle requires add-ons for transaction monitors, failover, etc. SQL has COM+, uses NT clustering and generally has everything built-in 13. SQL Analysis Services is included (A very powerful OLAP server). For Oracle it is a separate purchase.

Hope this helps some.

-- mark (devnull@devnull.com), March 01, 2003.


Is the query language the same for sql server 2000 and oracle? What is the difference between pl/sql and sql?

-- Sukhbir Singh (Brownsugar773328@aol.com), March 18, 2003.


Is the sql ,pl/sql same on sql server and Oracle?

-- Mamatha Yelwal (mamz72@hotmail.com), March 26, 2003.

could you please tell me the difference between oracle 7,8,8i,9,11

-- Pradeep Ragupathy (deepmca@rediffmail.com), March 27, 2003.

Oracle will be used especially in large database. But if we use sql server in such a environment, the data processing will become very slower. Oracle database very closely supports Java rather than Sql server.

-- V.Muralidharan (vmurali2000@hotmail.com), April 07, 2003.

Oracle 7 was RDBMS, i.e it was a relation database and the one's after that i.e. 8 onwards Oracle introduced the concept of OODBMS. Which stands for Object Oriented Database Management Systems. With every major release Oracle has initiated a lot of changes for the better. Like (1) Getting PL/SQL closer to ANSI SQL standards (2) Automatic Management of Undo from 9i onwards (3) Introduction of special Grouping operators for queries (4) ISQL env for easier query processing (5) RAC (I dunno much about it) (6) AS(Application Server, integrated into the database)

-- humdum (humdum@yahoo.com), April 23, 2003.

SQL server GUI is easy to work. SQL serever is easy to maintain. Orcal data procssing is very good compared to SQL server

-- C.N.Jha (cnjha@neilsoft.com), July 04, 2003.

PLEASE SEND 10 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ORACLE SQLSERVER2000

-- SUNITHAMADHUSUDHAN (SUNITHAMADHU1999@YAHOO.COM), July 14, 2003.

Here is a brief comparison between Oracle 9i and SQL Server 2000. Platform dependancy SQL Server is only operable on the Windows platform, a major limitation for it to be an enterprise solution. Oracle is available on multiple platforms such as Windows, all flavors of Unix from vendors such as IBM, Sun, Digital, HP, Sequent, etc. and VAX-VMS, as well as MVS. The multi-platform nature of Oracle makes it a true enterprise solution. Locking and concurrency SQL Server has no multi-version consistency model, which means that "writers block readers and readers block writers" to ensure data integrity. In contrast, with Oracle, the rule is "readers don't block writers and writers don't block readers." This is possible without compromising data integrity because Oracle will dynamically re-create a read-consistent image for a reader of any requested data that has been changed but not yet committed. In other words, the reader will see the data as it was before the writer began changing it (until the writer commits). SQL Server's locking scheme is much simpler (less mature) and will result in a lot of delays/waits in a heavy OLTP environment. Also, SQL Server will escalate row locks to page level locks when too many rows on a page are locked. This locks rows which are uninvolved in any updates for no good reason. Performance and tuning a. In SQL Server, the DBA has no "real" control over sorting and cache memory allocation. The memory allocation is decided only globally in the server properties memory folder, and that applies for ALL memory and not CACHING, SORTING, etc. b. All pages (blocks) are always 8k and all extents are always 8 pages (64k). This means you have no way to specify larger extents to ensure contiguous space for large objects. c. No range partioning of large tables and indexes. In Oracle, a large 100 GB table can be seamlessly partitioned at the database level into range partitions. For example, an invoice table can be partitioned into monthly partitions. Such partitioned tables and partitioned indexes give performance and maintenance benefits and are transparent to the application. d. There is no partitioning in SQL Server. e. There are no bitmap indexes in SQL Server. f. There are no reverse key indexes in SQL Server. g. There are no function-based indexes in SQL Server. h. There is no star query optimization in SQL Server. Object types Here are some object types missing in SQL Server that exist in Oracle. a. You cannot declare public or private synonyms. b. There is no such thing as independent sequence objects. c. There are no packages; i.e., collections of procedures and functions. d. No "before" event triggers (only "after" event triggers) and no row triggers (only statement). e. No object types like in PL/SQL. PL/SQL versus T-SQL a. In T-SQL there are significant extensions to the ANSI SQL-92 standard which means converting applications to a different database later will be a code challenge re-write. The INNER JOIN, LEFT OUTER, RIGHT OUTER JOIN syntax differs from the classic JOIN. b. No Java database engine as in Oracle. c. Stored procedures in SQL Server are not compiled until executed (which means overhead, late binding and finding errors at execution time only!). d. No ability to read/write from external files from a stored procedure. e. PL/SQL has many DBMS system packages, where T-SQL relies only on a limited number of extended and system stored procedures in the master database. f. PL/SQL is better in error exception handling, and there is no such thing as exceptions in T-SQL (T-SQL uses @@error -- not elegant!). g. T-SQL does not have the MINUS operator, that makes finding schema differences more difficult in SQL Server. h. In SQL Server there is no "dead connection detection". Clients who lose their connection may still hold locks until a DBA is notified to kill their server side processes. i. In SQL Server there is no such thing as SQL*NET aliases/service names! This means applications have to hard code the actual server name into their apps, making it difficult to move databases later to load balance across servers. Clustering technology In clustering technology, Oracle is light years ahead, since SQL Server has nothing like Oracle Parallel Server/RAC -- two instances acting on the same data in active-active configurations. And with the new version of Parallel Server in Oracle 9i, renamed as the Oracle Real Application Clusters, there is diskless contention handling of read-read, read-write, write-read, and write-write contention between the instances. This diskless contention handling is called Cache Fusion, and it means for the first time, any application can be placed in a cluster without any changes, and it scales upwards by just adding another machine to the cluster. Microsoft has nothing like this. Reliability a. In SQL Server Standard Edition there is no ability to mirror the transaction log files. In Enterprise Edition there is a log shipping process that is not so reliable. b. If the logs fill up the disk, the database will crash hard. c. Sometimes this requires the server itself to be rebooted. Summary SQL Server is clearly positioned between Microsoft Access and Oracle in terms of functionality, performance and scalability. It is a good workgroup-level solution, a very quick time to market solution, and is very simple to use and administer. Oracle is much more advanced and has more to offer for larger applications with both OLTP and data warehouse applications. Its new clustering features are ideal for Application Service Providers (ASPs) on the Internet, who can now start with a cluster of two small servers and grow by just adding a server when they need to.

-- G.Subramani (subbu_gk@yahoo.com), July 30, 2003.

What always amazes me is how many Oracle folks say SQL Server does not have this and that and our Oracle does all of this. Most of this is bullshit. The true is that many things can be accomplished differently in different databases and environments and it does not make sense to compare apples and oranges. Just to give you some ideas, when they say SQL server does not read/write files they forget to say that SQL Server does support extended stored procedures, using these procedures you can do file/write and virtually anything else that you can do in Windows and beyond. When they say SQL Server does not support Java, they forget to say that virtually nobody running SQL Servers wants to have slow and ugly Java (defeating the relational database concept) in their database and so on. This comparison is endless and has no real sense. Do not compare apples and oranges just because all of them are called fruits.

-- Forget it (none@none.com), August 05, 2003.

yes i do agree with forget it as mentioned above. otherwise if there would have been such a drastic differences showing one is mightier then the other would not have survived the market share ...and sql server is still there ..;-)

geniemani

-- geniemani (dontforgetme@geniemani.com), September 05, 2003.


hi send me diffrances

-- ashish saxena (ashuer@yahoo.com), September 07, 2003.

Hi Forget it,

That was a nice analysis by subramani!. You are forgetting that he was only responding to the question about differences between SQL server and Oracle but not trying (to sell oracle and to demean SQL server). For example if you read any car buying guide, it will list out what is there in one model car and what is not there compared to another model. Some body might have a personal bias towards a particular vendor.

But remember that if we are not good with all the products(rdbms) , and stick to our favourite one ---we will perish like an apple/orange in this market;).

-- murali (mkbobba@hotmail.com), September 08, 2003.


For supporting a different point of view:

http://www.xefteri.com/articles/17mar2003/default.aspx

http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluation/compare/pricecomparison.asp

-- murali (mkbobba@hotmail.com), September 08, 2003.


http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluation/compare/mythandreality.asp

-- murali (mkbobba@hotmail.com), September 08, 2003.

I agree with Murali(mkbobba@hotmail.com).His answer is absolutely correct.I hope Mr.Forget it will realize this

-- kvm (kvmreddy55@rediffmail.com), September 10, 2003.

Hello Friends, Can any one give me the difference b/w oracle 8i and 9i

Thanks

-- R (ragee_v@yahoo.com), September 11, 2003.


1i

-- Kabir Islam (kabiri@fundtech.com), September 18, 2003.

Caching in Oracle in the lites of PCTs is much better and powerfull than in that of SQL server.Also you can get the source code of Oracle!!

-- Amber R Marfatia (iomca4u@yahoo.com), October 16, 2003.

unrelated

خليفه اول خليفۂ رسول الله صلی اللہ عليہ وسلم بلا فصل



-- ÍÞ ÇÔÊåÇÑ ÈÇÒí (Your@Emai.Address), October 18, 2003.

Yes. Oracle is like apple and Sql Server is like Orange. For a Poor man Orange is better and for a rich man apple is better.

-- Michael Manoj (mica_manoj@yahoo.com), November 21, 2003.

What about SQL Servers DTS capabilities? No one rating these? I favour SQL Server for small quick business solutions on a budget, and Oracle for large scalable big budget solutions.

-- oracsqlserve (none@none.co.uk), December 22, 2003.

1. Oracle runs on many platforms, SQL on Windows only 2. Oracle includes IFS (Internet File System), Java integration, SQL is more of a pure database 3. Oracle requires client install and setup (Not difficult, but very UNIX-like for Windows users) 4. SQL is #1 in Cost/Performance and overall Performance, although Oracle will refute that 5. Replication is much easier in SQL (I have been at clients where even the Oracle consultant couldn't get it working w/oracle) 6. Fail over support in SQL is much, much easier 7. JDBC support is much better in Oracle, although Microsoft is working on it 8. ODBC support in both 9. SQL is ANSI-SQL '92 compliant, making it easier to convert to another ANSI compliant database, theoretically anyway (truth is every database has proprietary extensions). Oracle is generally more proprietary and their main goal is to keep their customers locked-in. 10. SQL natively supports ODBC, OLEDB, XML, XML Query, XML updates. Oracle natively supports proprietary connections, JDBC. Not sure about XML support though. 11. SQL Server is much easier to administrate, with GUI and command- line tools. Most of Oracle is command-line (Back in SQL 6.5 days I had a customer who was so proud that after a day's worth of work he had managed to script his database. I showed him how it was a 3 click operation in SQL ;-) 12. Oracle requires add-ons for transaction monitors, fail over, etc. SQL has COM+, uses NT clustering and generally has everything built-in 13. SQL Analysis Services is included (A very powerful OLAP server). For Oracle it is a separate purchase. 14. Security is high in Oracle. And it will work fine in any environments like UNIX, SOLARIES OR WINDOWS-NT. Where as SQL SERVER performs more on WINDOWS-NT only. There are certain futures which one will miss, if he uses SQL SERVER without Windiws-NT server. 15. Oracle will be used especially in large database. But if we use sql server in such a environment, the data processing will become very slower. Oracle database very closely supports Java rather than Sql server.

-- lakshmi (vijayakanda@hotmail.com), December 24, 2003.

dfsdf

-- sdfd (sdsf@sdfsd.com), January 19, 2004.

Thank you very much :) all of you .. becuase of this healthy discussion i have known few facts relating to the differnece b/w then .. I think we should give credit to Subramani who had very good points and did hard work to let us know things .. thankx alot you

Ali

-- Muhammad Ali (muhammad_ali81@hotmail.com), January 29, 2004.


Please any body can send me the differences cetween sqlserver and oracle.

-- Imran Khan (jazi__ik@hotmail.com), February 19, 2004.

A few "corrections" from a long-time SQL Server user... - Bitmap indexing is rarely ever missed in SQL server, due to other indexing/optimizing techniques - Stored procedure plans are indeed retained in a compiled state, it is blatantly false to say that they are recompiled every time - Statistics are much easier to manage in SQL, but you can get far more fine-grained control in Oracle - Generally speaking, SQL query optimizer is far far more reliable in SQL; query hints are used rarely, if ever. That said, every database will have at least some optimizer glitches, and it is up to the database developer to discover and fix them (usually with hints) - Generally testing performance is easy in SQL, with easily accessible query plans and statistics. These can be obtained from Oracle but are much more challenging. Same for profile/trace of database activity. - Very generally speaking, SQL uses far less memory and performs noticably better out of the box than Oracle. But because of Oracle's fine-tuning capabilities, a *skilled* DBA can get better performance out of Oracle. - SQL can indeed do range partitioning, but it must be done manually (where I think for example DB2 can do it automatically by hash) - see "partitioned views"

Helpful wins for Oracle: - runs on *nix (for many, this ends the debate immediately) - exception handling in pl/sql dialect - functon based indexes are occasionally very useful - but hard to rely upon (must write queries to exactly match the function usage) - can be heavily tuned for specific use cases; you rarely hit a dead-end optimizing oracle (if you have a very very skilled dba) - readers never block - standalone sequences are sometimes more useful than SQL IDENTITY - oracle supports more efficient constructs for fetching resultant data values during insert/update operations, and for advanced bulk operations

Helpful wins for SQL: - runs great out of the box - free excellent management, profiling, monitoring tools - excellent query optimizer - rarely needs any tuning at all (but when you do, the options are few; wysiwyg) - included top-notch OLAP tool and full-text search; competitive with much more expensive solutions - much less memory and compute intensive (probably due to cheaper concurrency model and lighter configuration options!) - SQL also caches query plans of recent statements in an LRU cache - frequently used statements do not need recompiles, even without procedures

Big difference: very different concurrency model between SQL and Oracle. Oracle operates against point-in-time(log) snapshots of the data (using SCNs), but acquires those on demand. Therefore readers never block. In SQL, you have more choices of isolation/concurrency, but the more aggressive settings will have writers block readers, and the most aggressive can have readers block writers. In classic RDBMS this is not too bad - but in complex deep relations such as OORDBMS-over-RDBMS or other object-graph storage solutions, deadlocks can really hurt your project unless you can scale some queries back to Read Committed isolation level.

-- David Goldstein (daveg@summa-tech.com), March 15, 2004.


Oh yes!!! One more thing:
Oracle will not index null values (for compound indexes, that means all values null produces no entry).
SQL will index all rows.
On Oracle this can be an advantage for large tables where columns are often null but you want to find the non-null values quickly; but is a terrible disadvantage if you need to find null values (it produces a table scan).
On SQL sometimes you wish you could ignore nulls (but I believe they dropped that option long ago); but you almost never get surprised by those nasty table scans.


-- David Goldstein (daveg@summa-tech.com), March 15, 2004.

1.Oracle is platform independent 2.Oracle has in built jvm we can include java classes into it. 3.Sql server has better gui than oracle 4.Sql server has better perfomance in backups,replication,recovery 5.There is no synonym database object in sql server,no package no row trigger,no before trigger. 6.oracle has better querry processing 7. oracle has better internet computing 8.sql server is easy to use with ms platforms 9.oracle has more powerfull pl/sql 10.oracle is better for large database.

-- Gagan jaiswal (jaiswalgagan3@yahoo.co.in), March 31, 2004.

bhen ke loudo saaleyo padh nahi sakte apne aap aur yaha aake answer maangte ho.... aur madarchodo search karna bhi nahi aata tumhe... bhosdi walo kehne ko comp. engg. kar rahe par searching nahi aati.. jab kaam karne lagoge waha pe bhi kya gaand marwaoge kya ... aisi hi sites pe jaake plz plz karke answer mangoge......tumhari maa bhen di ta mai... Gaand marao saalo

-- Tiger (thetiger@langoo.com), April 05, 2004.

Are yar tiger ... kya tune e londo ko bahut galiya diya. Are thoda shikhade ne yar.. Apne desh ka nam roshan karenge.

-- Sanjay (sanjay_Dba@yahoo.com), April 14, 2004.

The following article compares Oracle versus Microsoft SQL Server 2000. It highlights most of the SQL Server technical limitations, and in the same time gives the corresponding Oracle solutions to these limitations.

The article could be helpful, to anyone trying to make comparison or evaluation to any of the both products.

To read the complete story, click on the Read more ... link.

The article was written by Faulkner, Kent - USA and updated by Havewala, Porus - Australia.

1. SINGLE PLATFORM DEPENDANCY

SQL Server is only operable on the Windows platform, and this is a major limitation for it to be an enterprise solution. Oracle is available on multiple platforms such as Windows, all flavors of Unix from vendors such as IBM, Sun, Digital, HP, Sequent, etc. and VAX- VMS as well as MVS. The multi-platform nature of Oracle makes it a true enterprise solution.

2. LOCKING / CONCURRENCY

SQL Server has no multi-version consistency model which means that "writers block readers and readers block writers" to ensure data integrity. In contrast, with Oracle the rule is "readers dont block writers and writers dont block readers". This is possible without compromising data integrity because Oracle will dynamically re-create a read-consistent image for a reader of any requested data that has been changed but not yet committed.

In other words, the reader will see the data as it was before the writer began changing it (until the writer commits). SQL Server's locking scheme is much simpler (less mature) and will result in a lot ff delays/waits in a heavy OLTP environment.

Also, SQL Server will escalate row locks to page level locks when too many rows on a page are locked. This locks rows which are uninvolved in any updates for no good reason.

3. POTENTIAL OF LONG UNCOMMITED TRANSACTIONS HALTING DATABASE ACTIVITY

In SQL Server 2000, a long uncommitted transaction can stop other transactions which queue behind it in the single transaction log, and this can stop all activity on the database, whereas in Oracle, if there is a long uncommitted transaction, only the transaction itself will stop when it runs out of rollback space, because of the use of different rollback segments for transactions.

Oracle allocates transactions randomly to any of its multiple rollback segments and areas inside that rollback segment. When the transaction is committed, that space is released for other transactions, however Sql server allocates transactions sequentially to its single transaction log, the space occupied by committed transactions is not released to new transactions until the recycling of the transaction log is complete (in a circular round-robin manner).

This means if there is an uncommitted transaction in the middle, and the transaction log cannot grow by increasing the file size, no new transactions will be allowed. This is the potential of a single uncommitted transaction to halt database activity.

4. PERFORMANCE and TUNING

a. No control of sorting (memory allocation) in SQL Server. Oracle can fully control the sort area size and allows it to be set by the DBA.

b. No control over SQL Caching (memory allocation) in SQL Server. This is controllable in Oracle.

c. No control over storage/space management to prevent fragmentation in SQL Server. All pages (blocks) are always 8k and all extents are always 8 pages (64k). This means you have no way to specify larger extents to ensure contiguous space for large objects. In Oracle, this is fully configurable.

d. No range partioning of large tables and indexes in SQL Server, whereas in Oracle a large table (eg. 100 GB or more) can be seamlessly partitioned at the database level into range partitions, for eg. an invoice table can be partitioned into monthly partitions.

Such partitioned tables and partitioned indexes give performance and maintenance benefits and are transparent to the application.

e. No Log miner facility in SQL Server. Oracle 8i and 9i supply a Log Miner which enables inspection of archived redo logs. This comes free with the database. But in the case of SQL Server, external products from other companies have to be purchased to do this important DBA task.

f. A SQL Server DBA claimed that fully qualifying the name of an object in SQL Server code would lead to performance gains of 7% to 10%. There are no dictionary performance problems like that in Oracle. Oracle would have some gains if it fully qualified all names - say 0.01 percent.

This actually shows the difference in the internal database technology between Oracle and Microsoft and implies that the technology of resolving object names via the dictionary is more advanced in the case of Oracle, ie. Oracle seems to better access its internal dictionary and resolve names, unlike SQL server.

5. MISSING OBJECT TYPES IN SQL SERVER

a. No public or private synonyms b. No independent sequences c. No packages ie. collection of procedures and functions.

6. PROGRAMMING

a. Significant extensions to the ANSI SQL-92 standard in SQL Server, which means converting applications to a different database later will be a challenge (code re-write).

b. Sql Server has no inbuilt JAVA database engine as in Oracle. In Oracle, Java classes can be loaded and executed in the database itself, thus adding the database's security and scalability to Java applications.

c. In SQL Server, stored Procedures are not compiled until executed (overhead). In Oracle, packages and procs/functions are compiled before execution.

In Oracle 9i it is also possible to translate Pl/Sql into C code and then compile/link the code, which gives very good performance gains for numeric intensive operations. SQL Server has no such ability.

d. In SQL server, there is no ability to read/write from external files from a stored procedure. Oracle has this ability.

e. SQL Server uses cryptic commands for database administration like:

exec sp_addrolemember N'db_datareader', N'davidb' go

This is to add the user davidb to the role db_datareader.

On the other hand, Oracle uses standard English-like SQL commands to do the same:

grant db_datareader to davidb;

This one statement does all, in simple English, what the cryptic SQL Server command does.

f. Oracle SQL and PL/SQL syntax is more powerful and can do things more intuitively than Microsoft Transact-SQL. Try to sum up a column by each month, and show the totals for the month, in SQL Server you do it in T-SQL by grouping on strings, in Oracle it is possible to do this grouping by the trunc(,'month') function. This method in Oracle is more intuitive, it understands the dates, the method in SQL Server does not.

g. In SQL Server, you cannot issue a "create or replace" for either procedures or views, in Oracle you can. This one facility simplifies code writing, since in Sql Server the procedure or view must be dropped first if present and then recreated ie. two commands, in Oracle there is no need - a single command "create or replace" is enough.

h. In Oracle, a procedure/function/package/view is marked as invalid if a dependant object changes. In SQL Server there is no concept of an invalid procedure, it will run but give unexpected results. The former is more suitable for change control and preventing unexpected errors.

i. A recompile reuses the code that is in the Oracle database, the actual command is "alter procedure compile". This is applicable to procedures/functions/packages/views. This concept of recompiling is not there in SQL Server where you have to resubmit the whole code if you want to recompile a procedure.

j. Triggers in Oracle do not allow transactional control ie. commit/rollback/savepoint statements. Whereas, triggers in SQL Server allow commits/rollbacks, which is potentially dangerous and can cause problems with transactions which fire the trigger.

Triggers in SQL Server also can start transactions of their own which is not very good and shows lack of maturity of the language.

7. STANDBY DIFFERENCES

SQL Server and Oracle have differences regarding standby databases. A standby is a database set up on a second server and to which logs are applied ie. all database changes, so that the standby can be activated and used in the case of a failover.

a. In the case of Sql server, when there is a failover, the "master" and "msdb" databases have to be restored from backup or copied over from the primary to the standby and then the standby is activated after all logs are applied. In Oracle, there is no need for a restore to be done, the standby can be activated at any time after all logs are applied.

This difference exists because of the fact that in SQL server, new users/roles added to the primary are not carried over to the standby (these users/roles go in the master/msdb) and backups have to be done continuously of the master and msdb, these backups are then restored when the time comes for a failover.

In the case of Oracle, users/roles when created in the primary are automatically carried over to the standby. So when the failover time arrives, all that is needed is to activate the standby.

b. In the case of Sql Server, if the standby is opened as read only, to switch it back to standby again, a restore from backup has to be done. In the case of Oracle, from 8i version onwards, if a standby database is opened as read only, it can be reopened as a standby without restoring from backup.

c. The time delay to apply logs between the primary and the standby can be varied, but it can never be 0 minutes in the case of SQL Server.

In the case of Oracle, in 9i it is possible to have logs applied simultaneously to the primary as well as standby, using Net8 protocol. This means zero data loss in the case of a failover whereas SQL Server's log shipping cannot avoid data loss d during the time gap.

d. SQL Server's log shipping mechanism also happens at the OS level, whereas Oracle's mechanism can take place directly at the Net8 level where logs are automatically applied to standbys without any scripts or OS batch files, this mechanism in Oracle is called managed standby.

e.One deficiency of Oracle in the standby was that datafiles, if created on the primary, had to be manually created on the standby whereas SQL Server does this automatically. However, in 9i, this deficiency is fixed and data files are created automatically at the standby.

f. Another deficiency of Oracle in the standby is that direct loads, if using the unrecoverable facility to bypass redo logging, require the data files of the primary database to be manually copied across to the standby. This is not fixed in 9i. SQL Server's version of log shipping and direct loads do not require this copying across.

8. CLUSTER TECHNOLOGY

In clustering technology, in the case of SQL Server, two nodes cannot work on the same database, they "share nothing". At the best, to utilize the power of both nodes, the application must be manually spit up and redistributed between the hosts, working on different sets of data, and it is not possible to seamlessly scale upwards by adding another node to the cluster in the case of SQL Server.

Most cluster configurations in Sql Server use the power of only one node, leaving the other node to take over only if there is a problem with the first node.

In the case of Oracle Parallel server, it is possible to have two or more instances of the database on different nodes acting on the SAME data in active-active configurations. Lock management is handled by the Oracle Parallel server. With the new version of Parallel Server in Oracle 9i, renamed as the Oracle real application cluster (9i RAC), there is diskless contention handling of read-read, read- write, write-read, and write-write contention between the instances.

This diskless contention handling is called Cache Fusion and it means for the first time, any application can be placed in a cluster without any changes, and it scales upwards by just adding another machine to the cluster.

Microsoft has nothing like this clustering technology of Oracle, which can best be described as "light years ahead".

9. REPLICATION DIFFERENCES

In Microsoft SQL Server's version of simple replication ie, publisher-subscriber using transactional replication, even if only one table is being replicated, the entire transaction log is checked by the log reader agent and transactional changes applied to the subscribers.

In Oracle's simple replication, changes to a single table are stored in a snapshot log and copied across, there is no need to check all the archive logs.

10. SECURITY

As of 2002, Oracle has 14 independent security evaluations; Microsoft SQL Server has only one.

11. INFORMATION POOL

SQL Server and Internet articles of the magazine are only available with paid subscription. Whereas, Oracle has given its magazine free for many years, all articles are free on the internet, and the Oracle Technical network (OTN) is also free on the internet.

12. USABILITY

Some people say Microsoft SQL Server tools, like Enterprise manager, are easy to use. Oracle Enterprise Manager is a huge tool and seems daunting to inexperienced people. This is true to an extent, however ease of use cannot be compared with the many features in Oracle, and its industrial-level strength, and its many technical advantages.

13. TCP Benchmarks

March 2002 Benchmarks from TPC.org show that Oracle 9i is seen in the majority of top benchmarks in "non-clustered" TPC-C for performance (OLTP), whereas SQL Server is seen in the majority of entries for "clustered" TPC-C for performance (OLTP).

This gives the strange impression that SQL server is faster in a cluster than in a non-cluster, which is misleading. The fact is that this result is due to the use of "federated databases" in clusters by Microsoft in which pieces of the application are broken up and placed on separate active-active servers, each working on separate pieces of the application.

While excellent for theoretical benchmarks, this is not a practical approach in the real life IT world because it requires massive changes to any application, and also ongoing changes to the application when new servers are added to the cluster (each server has a view that sees the data in the other servers, adding a new server would mean rewriting the views for all tables on all servers) and would be rejected by any practical headed manager.

Using this impractical approach of federated databases in clusters, the impression is that Sql-server leads in clustered performance, but the practical reality is otherwise. This is seen in the way SQL Server is not to be seen in the non-clustered benchmarks.

Also, Oracle leads the way for Tpc benchmarks for Decision Support Systems with 1,000 Gb and 3,000 Gb sizes (TPC-H by performance per scale), whereas SQL Server is only seen to a small extent in the 300GB range.

14. XML Support

To provide a more native support for XML, the first release of Oracle9i Database introduced the XMLType datatype and associated XML specific behavior. In addition, built in XML generation and aggregation operators greatly increase the throughput of XML processing.

With the second release of Oracle9i, Oracle significantly adds to XML support in the database server. This fully absorbs the W3C XML data model into the Oracle database, and provides new standard access methods for navigating and querying XML - creating a native integrated XML database within the Oracle RDBMS.

The key XDB technologies can be grouped into two major classes - XMLType that provides a native XML storage and retrieval capability strongly integrated with SQL, and an XML Repository that provides foldering, access control, versioning etc. for XML resources. The integration of a native XML capability within the database brings a number of benefits.

In summation, Oracle9i Release 2's XDB functionality is a high- performance XML storage and retrieval technology available with the Oracle9i Release 2 database. It fully absorbs the W3C XML data model into the Oracle Database, and provides new standard access methods for navigating and querying XML. With XDB, you get all the advantages of relational database technology and XML technology at the same time.

In contrast to this, Microsoft SQL Server 2000 only has limited ways to read and write xml from its tables.

SUMMARY

SQL Server is clearly positioned between MS-ACCESS and ORACLE in terms of functionality, performance, and scalability. It makes a work group level solution (small number of users with small amount of data), perhaps at the departmental level.

Oracle is much more advanced and has more to offer for larger applications with both OLTP and Data Warehouse applications. Its new clustering features are ideal for Application Service Providers (ASPs) on the Internet who can now start with a cluster of 2 small servers and grow by just adding a server when they need to. Besides, Oracle's multi-platform capability makes it the most convincing argument for an enterprise.

Related links More about Oracle Tips & Ideas News by Administrator

--------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------

Most read story in Oracle Tips & Ideas: 127 Oracle DBA job interview questions

Oracle versus Microsoft SQL Server 2000 comparission | Login/Create an account | 2 Comments Threshold -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 No comments Nested Flat Thread Oldest first Newest first Highest scores first Comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

Re: Oracle versus Microsoft SQL Server 2000 comparission (Score: 0) by Anonymous on Feb 18, 2003 - 10:15 AM I am a Project Manager who has worked on both SQLserver and Oracle projects in internet and standard LAN environments. My opinion is based on user perceptions of the databases and may have no justification technically, but they are what people are saying.

Most users don't care what the database is. Often they will be a MS or Oracle shop and that's that, you wont change them. So usually there is no choice or even comparison of technologies, it's just "we have an Oracle licence, use it" and that's it. There is more to speed than the database.

The raw grunt of the database is rarely a problem. You are far more likely to find speed issues that come from poor database design, crappy data models, slow networks, poor application architecture or just plain bad software design than from the actual speed of the database. When you get to the really high end, sure it matters, but the time and effort spent changing from RDBMS to the other to get extra speed (if there is any, and marginal at best) could be better spent on a gruntier box, you'll need one next year anyway.

Once an MS shop, always an MS shop. MS has the "integration" of its products down pat. If you implement an MS solution from end-to-end, likely you will never get out. Their products are so dependent upon each other that to replace one component is just too hard. You can build similar implementations in Oracle by embedding logic in the database, but you don't have to.

Oracle is far more OPEN to different clients and platforms. If you want an SQLserver system to run at optimal performance, it's MS end- to-end.

Robert Green Software Developer, Consulting/Systems Integrator

Re: Oracle versus Microsoft SQL Server 2000 comparission (Score: 0) by Anonymous on Feb 19, 2003 - 10:23 AM SQL Server is a joke

With all the hype, MSFT still can't keep locks from escalating and DB reads clean. Until MSFT, SYBS, and IBM do so they will not be taken seriously in the high OLTP world demanded by the web.

Check the stats, 10 of the top 10 web sites in the world use Oracle. As far as the TPC benchmarks are concerned, IBM and MSFT are using smoke and mirrors. It took TWELVE separate databases to be only twice as fast as ONE Oracle database.

Oracle has been able to use federations of databases (used by MSFT and IBM) for benchmarks for five years. Oracle could beat IBM numbers 10 times over using a federation, but won't because any real DBA would never consider using this useless configuration in a real situation. Shared disk is the cluster configuration of every major system on the web, MSFT, IBM and everybody else can't yet do it so they use Shared nothing, which is good for just that, NOTHING. If you buy into the hype, be sure to keep your receipt! by vikram lashkari

-- Vikram Lashkari (vikram_lashkari@yahoo.com), April 20, 2004.


Thank you all for these great answers, I have been looking for a succinct precis like this for a while, you have saved me much wading through sales material.

-- Martin Lang (martin.lang@mail.com), April 22, 2004.

I have a very specific comparison between both the DB. If u need to update multiple column with the condition in Oracle it is possible but same thing is not possible at SQL server.

Ex: update emp set (empname,sal)=( select empname,sal from emp where empcode=10000)

-- Arun Kumar (arkumar74@hotmail.com), April 26, 2004.


in both you have procedural langage but:

a) oracle , you can catch exception where you want, even a the end of procedure and then trapping all cases.

b) sql2000, yu need to write your own code AFTER EACH statement, heavy, heavy,heavy.

-- bruno delaunay (bdelaunay@lovefrance.fr), May 31, 2004.


Oracle is best perfomance rather than SQL Server...

-- Alim (affanbsc@yahoo.com), June 04, 2004.

this is some good stuff. i learnt a lot ,thanx.

-- xyzstarr (thato@info4africa.info), July 02, 2004.

SQL Server 2000 only works on Windows-based platforms, including Windows 9x, Windows NT, Windows 2000 and Windows CE. In comparison with SQL Server 2000, Oracle 9i Database supports all known platforms, including Windows-based platforms, AIX-Based Systems, Compaq Tru64 UNIX, HP 9000 Series HP-UX, Linux Intel, Sun Solaris and so on.

It is very difficult to make the performance comparison between SQL Server 2000 and Oracle 9i Database. The performance of your databases depends rather from the experience of the database developers and database administrator than from the database's provider. You can use both of these RDBMS to build stable and efficient system. However, it is possible to define the typical transactions, which used in inventory control systems, airline reservation systems and banking systems. After defining these typical transactions, it is possible to run them under the different database management systems working on the different hardware and software platforms. Both SQL Server 2000 and Oracle 9i Database support the ANSI SQL-92 entry level and do not support the ANSI SQL-92 intermediate level. In the Features comparison section of this article I want to make the brief comparison of the Transact-SQL with PL/SQL and show some SQL Server 2000 and Oracle 9i Database limits.

SQL Server 2000 vs Oracle 9i Alexander Chigrik chigrik@mssqlcity.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------

Introduction Platform comparison Hardware requirements Software requirements Performance comparison TPC tests Price comparison Features comparison T-SQL vs PL/SQL SQL Server 2000 and Oracle 9i limits Conclusion Literature

--------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------

Introduction Often people in newsgroups ask about some comparison of Oracle and Microsoft SQL Server. In this article, I compare SQL Server 2000 with Oracle 9i Database regarding price, performance, platforms supported, SQL dialects and products limits.

Platform comparison SQL Server 2000 only works on Windows-based platforms, including Windows 9x, Windows NT, Windows 2000 and Windows CE. In comparison with SQL Server 2000, Oracle 9i Database supports all known platforms, including Windows-based platforms, AIX-Based Systems, Compaq Tru64 UNIX, HP 9000 Series HP-UX, Linux Intel, Sun Solaris and so on.

Hardware requirements To install SQL Server 2000, you should have the Intel or compatible platforms and the following hardware:

Hardware Requirements Processor Pentium 166 MHz or higher Memory 32 MB RAM (minimum for Desktop Engine), 64 MB RAM (minimum for all other editions), 128 MB RAM or more recommended Hard disk space 270 MB (full installation), 250 MB (typical), 95 MB (minimum), Desktop Engine: 44 MB Analysis Services: 50 MB minimum and 130 MB typical English Query: 80 MB

Oracle 9i supports Intel or compatible platforms, AIX-Based Systems, Compaq Tru64 UNIX, HP 9000 Series HP-UX, Linux Intel, Sun Solaris and so on.

To install Oracle 9i under the Intel or compatible platforms, you should have the following hardware:

Hardware Requirements Processor Pentium 166 MHz or higher Memory RAM: 128 MB (256 MB recommended) Virtual Memory: Initial Size 200 MB, Maximum Size 400 MB Hard disk space 140 MB on the System Drive plus 4.5 GB for the Oracle Home Drive (FAT) or 2.8 GB for the Oracle Home Drive (NTFS)

To install Oracle 9i Database under the UNIX Systems, such as AIX- Based Systems, Compaq Tru64 UNIX, HP 9000 Series HP-UX, and Sun Solaris, you should have the following hardware:

Hardware Requirements Memory A minimum of 512 MB RAM Swap Space A minimum of 2 x RAM or 400 MB, whichever is greater Hard disk space 4.5 GB

Software requirements SQL Server 2000 comes in six editions: Enterprise, Standard, Personal, Developer, Desktop Engine, and SQL Server CE (a compatible version for Windows CE) and requires the following software:

Operating System Enterprise Edition Standard Edition Personal Edition Developer Edition Desktop Engine SQL Server CE Windows CE No No No No No Yes Windows 9x No No Yes No Yes No Windows NT 4.0 Workstation with Service Pack 5 No No Yes Yes Yes No Windows NT 4.0 Server with Service Pack 5 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Windows NT 4.0 Server Enterprise Edition with Service Pack 5 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Windows 2000 Professional No No Yes Yes Yes No Windows 2000 Server Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Windows 2000 Advanced Server Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Windows 2000 DataCenter Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Windows XP Professional No No Yes Yes Yes No

Oracle 9i Database comes in three editions: Enterprise, Standard and Personal and requires the following software:

Platform Operating System Version Required Patches Windows-based Windows NT 4.0 Service Pack 5 Windows-based Windows 2000 Service Pack 1 Windows-based Windows XP Not Necessary AIX-Based AIX 4.3.3 Maintenance Level 09 and IY24568, IY25282, IY27614, IY30151 AIX-Based AIX 5.1 AIX 5L release 5.1 ML01+ (IY22854), IY26778, IY28766, IY28949, IY29965, IY30150 Compaq Tru64 UNIX Tru64 5.1 5.1 patchkit 4 Compaq Tru64 UNIX Tru64 5.1A 5.1A patchkit 1 HP-UX HP-UX version 11.0 (64-bit) Sept. 2001 Quality Pack, PHCO_23792, PHCO_24148, PHKL_24268, PHKL_24729, PHKL_ 25475, PHKL_25525, PHNE_24715, PHSS_23670, PHSS_24301, PHSS_24303, PHSS_24627, PHSS_22868 Linux SuSE Linux Enterprise Server 7 (or SLES-7) with kernel 2.4.7, and glibc 2.2.2 Not Necessary Sun Solaris Solaris 32-Bit 2.6 (5.6), 7 (5.7) or 8 (5.8) Not Necessary Sun Solaris Solaris 64-Bit 8 (5.8) Update 5

Performance comparison It is very difficult to make the performance comparison between SQL Server 2000 and Oracle 9i Database. The performance of your databases depends rather from the experience of the database developers and database administrator than from the database's provider. You can use both of these RDBMS to build stable and efficient system. However, it is possible to define the typical transactions, which used in inventory control systems, airline reservation systems and banking systems. After defining these typical transactions, it is possible to run them under the different database management systems working on the different hardware and software platforms.

TPC tests The Transaction Processing Performance Council (TPC.Org) is independent organization that specifies the typical transactions (transactions used in inventory control systems, airline reservation systems and banking systems) and some general rules these transactions should satisfy.

The TPC produces benchmarks that measure transaction processing and database performance in terms of how many transactions a given system and database can perform per unit of time, e.g., transactions per second or transactions per minute.

The TPC organization made the specification for many tests. There are TPC-C, TPC-H, TPC-R, TPC-W and some old tests, such as TPC-A, TPC-B and TPC-D. The most popular test is the TPC-C test (OLTP test).

At the moment the article was wrote, SQL Server 2000 held the top TPC-C by performance results with Distributed Partitioned Views- based cluster systems. See Top Ten TPC-C by Performance Version 5 Results

At the moment the article was wrote, SQL Server 2000 held the top TPC-C by price/performance results. See Top Ten TPC-C by Price/Performance Version 5 Results

Note. Because most organizations really do not run very large databases, so the key points on which SQL Server 2000 won the TPC-C benchmarks do not really matter to the vast majority of companies.

Price comparison One of the main Microsoft SQL Server 2000 advantage in comparison with Oracle 9i Database is that SQL Server is cheaper. Other SQL Server advantage is that Microsoft includes the Online analytical processing (OLAP) and Data Mining as standard features in SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition. So, you can save up to four times with SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition if you use OLAP and Data Mining.

The price comparisons below were based on the Oracle and SQL Server 2000 Price Comparison article from Microsoft.

Compare pricing for SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition and Oracle9i Standard Edition:

Number of CPUs Oracle9i Standard Edition SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition 1 $15,000 $4,999 2 $30,000 $9,998 4 $60,000 $19,996 8 $120,000 $39,992 16 $240,000 $79,984 32 $480,000 $159,968

Compare pricing for SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition (which include OLAP and Data Mining) and Oracle9i Enterprise Edition with OLAP and/or Data Mining:

Number of CPUs Oracle9i Enterprise Edition Oracle9i Enterprise Edition with OLAP or Data Mining Oracle9i Enterprise Edition With OLAP and Data Mining SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition 1 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $19,999 2 $80,000 $120,000 $160,000 $39,998 4 $160,000 $240,000 $320,000 $79,996 8 $320,000 $480,000 $640,000 $159,992 16 $640,000 $960,000 $1,280,000 $319,984 32 $1,280,000 $1,920,000 $2,560,000 $639,968

Note. This is not a full price comparison between SQL Server 2000 and Oracle 9i Database. It is only a brief comparison. You can have any discounts and the prices can be increased or decreased in the future. See Microsoft and Oracle to get more information about the price of their products.

Features comparison Both SQL Server 2000 and Oracle 9i Database support the ANSI SQL-92 entry level and do not support the ANSI SQL-92 intermediate level. In the Features comparison section of this article I want to make the brief comparison of the Transact-SQL with PL/SQL and show some SQL Server 2000 and Oracle 9i Database limits.

T-SQL vs PL/SQL The dialect of SQL supported by Microsoft SQL Server 2000 is called Transact-SQL (T-SQL). The dialect of SQL supported by Oracle 9i Database is called PL/SQL. PL/SQL is more powerful language than T- SQL

-- Narayana Reddy P (narayana_395@yahoo.co.in), July 03, 2004.


Difference between Oracle and SQL 2000

Introduction In this article, I compare SQL Server 2000 with Oracle 9i Database regarding price, performance, platforms supported, SQL dialects and products limits.

Platform comparison SQL Server 2000 only works on Windows-based platforms, including Windows 9x, Windows NT, Windows 2000 and Windows CE. In comparison with SQL Server 2000, Oracle 9i Database supports all known platforms, including Windows-based platforms, AIX-Based Systems, Compaq Tru64 UNIX, HP 9000 Series HP-UX, Linux Intel, Sun Solaris and so on.

Hardware requirements To install SQL Server 2000, you should have the Intel or compatible platforms and the following hardware: Hardware Requirements Processor Pentium 166 MHz or higher Memory 32 MB RAM (minimum for Desktop Engine),64 MB RAM (minimum for all other editions),128 MB RAM or more recommended Hard disk space 270 MB (full installation),250 MB (typical),95 MB (minimum),Desktop Engine: 44 MBAnalysis Services: 50 MB minimum and 130 MB typicalEnglish Query: 80 MB

Oracle 9i supports Intel or compatible platforms, AIX-Based Systems, Compaq Tru64 UNIX, HP 9000 Series HP-UX, Linux Intel, Sun Solaris and so on.

To install Oracle 9i under the Intel or compatible platforms, you should have the following hardware: Hardware Requirements Processor Pentium 166 MHz or higher Memory RAM: 128 MB (256 MB recommended)Virtual Memory: Initial Size 200 MB, Maximum Size 400 MB Hard disk space 140 MB on the System Driveplus 4.5 GB for the Oracle Home Drive (FAT)or 2.8 GB for the Oracle Home Drive (NTFS)

To install Oracle 9i Database under the UNIX Systems, such as AIX- Based Systems, Compaq Tru64 UNIX, HP 9000 Series HP-UX, and Sun Solaris, you should have the following hardware: Hardware Requirements Memory A minimum of 512 MB RAM Swap Space A minimum of 2 x RAM or 400 MB, whichever is greater Hard disk space 4.5 GB

Software requirements SQL Server 2000 comes in six editions: Enterprise, Standard, Personal, Developer, Desktop Engine, and SQL Server CE (a compatible version for Windows CE) and requires the following software:

Operating Enterprise Standard Personal Developer Desktop SQL Server System Edition Edition Edition Edition Engine CE Windows CE No No No No No Yes

Windows 9x No No Yes No Yes No

Windows NT 4.0 Workstation with Service Pack 5 No No Yes Yes Yes No

Windows NT 4.0 Server with Service Pack 5 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Windows NT 4.0 Server Enterprise Edition with Service Pack 5 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Windows 2000 Professional No No Yes Yes Yes No Windows 2000 Server Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Windows 2000 Advanced Server Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Windows 2000 DataCenter Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Windows XP Professional No No Yes Yes Yes No

Performance comparison It is very difficult to make the performance comparison between SQL Server 2000 and Oracle 9i Database. The performance of your databases depends rather from the experience of the database developers and database administrator than from the database's provider. You can use both of these RDBMS to build stable and efficient system. However, it is possible to define the typical transactions, which used in inventory control systems, airline reservation systems and banking systems. After defining these typical transactions, it is possible to run them under the different database management systems working on the different hardware and software platforms.

TPC tests The Transaction Processing Performance Council (TPC.Org) is independent organization that specifies the typical transactions (transactions used in inventory control systems, airline reservation systems and banking systems) and some general rules these transactions should satisfy.

The TPC produces benchmarks that measure transaction processing and database performance in terms of how many transactions a given system and database can perform per unit of time, e.g., transactions per second or transactions per minute.

The TPC organization made the specification for many tests. There are TPC-C, TPC-H, TPC-R, TPC-W and some old tests, such as TPC-A, TPC-B and TPC-D. The most popular test is the TPC-C test (OLTP test).

At the moment the article was wrote, SQL Server 2000 held the top TPC- C by performance results with Distributed Partitioned Views-based cluster systems. See Top Ten TPC-C by Performance Version 5 Results

At the moment the article was wrote, SQL Server 2000 held the top TPC- C by price/performance results. See Top Ten TPC-C by Price/Performance Version 5 Results

Note. Because most organizations really do not run very large databases, so the key points on which SQL Server 2000 won the TPC-C benchmarks do not really matter to the vast majority of companies. Price comparison One of the main Microsoft SQL Server 2000 advantage in comparison with Oracle 9i Database is that SQL Server is cheaper. Other SQL Server advantage is that Microsoft includes the Online analytical processing (OLAP) and Data Mining as standard features in SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition. So, you can save up to four times with SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition if you use OLAP and Data Mining.

The price comparisons below were based on the Oracle and SQL Server 2000 Price Comparison article from Microsoft. Compare pricing for SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition and Oracle9i Standard Edition: Number of CPUs Oracle9i Standard Edition SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition 1 $15,000 $4,999 2 $30,000 $9,998 4 $60,000 $19,996 8 $120,000 $39,992 16 $240,000 $79,984 32 $480,000 $159,968

Features comparison Both SQL Server 2000 and Oracle 9i Database support the ANSI SQL-92 entry level and do not support the ANSI SQL-92 intermediate level. In the Features comparison section of this article I want to make the brief comparison of the Transact-SQL with PL/SQL and show some SQL Server 2000 and Oracle 9i Database limits.

Conclusion It is not true that SQL Server 2000 is better than Oracle 9i or vice versa. Both products can be used to build stable and efficient system and the stability and effectiveness of your applications and databases depend rather from the experience of the database developers and database administrator than from the database's provider. But SQL Server 2000 has some advantages in comparison with Oracle 9i and vice versa.

The SQL Server 2000 advantages: SQL Server 2000 is cheaper to buy than Oracle 9i Database. SQL Server 2000 holds the top TPC-C performance and price/performance results. SQL Server 2000 is generally accepted as easier to install, use and manage. The Oracle 9i Database advantages: Oracle 9i Database supports all known platforms, not only the Windows-based platforms. PL/SQL is more powerful language than T-SQL. More fine-tuning to the configuration can be done via start- up parameters.



-- Veena (wenarv@yahoo.com), August 11, 2004.


tell me difference between oracle 8i and sql server 2000

-- ranjan (ranjan_kuku@yahoo.com), August 12, 2004.

Thanx for the discussion, if u find the better one mail to me skgs55@yahoo.com

-- shankar (skgs55@yahoo.com), September 17, 2004.

thanks for ur valuable information and pl continue the same

-- viswanadh kiran (svnkiran53@rediffmail.com), October 18, 2004.

All are bullsit man. No oracle is good no SQL server is good. Only DB2 is good man. SQL 2005 is best.But still oracle is better than best

SmitP

-- Smriti Panta (smriti1982@hotmail.com), February 11, 2005.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ