Oracle vs MS-SQL

[portseven]

OK,

Question for you database guru's

My understanding is that you deploy Oracle for 'big stuff' and MS-SQL for 'smaller stuff'. Thats really just based on accepted practice in places I have worked and 'gut feel'

Can anyone give me a more informed answer why that is true or not?

Thanks

[Fishface]

Oracle = Macho Guys huffing and puffing

SQL Server does just the same with out all the faff

[DimPrawn]

Oracle have been implementing gigantic databases for donkeys years.

In comparison MS SQL Server is just a fresh faced kid on the block.

In theory, given the right people MS SQL Server on the right hardware can match Oracle on performance and kick its old wrinkly butt on bang per buck.

However there are a lot of idiots DBA's and paper MCSE's out there fecking up MS SQL installs so it runs like a dog.

If you want big bucks as a contractor, the money is in Oracle.

[lilelvis2000]

Speaking from my experience.
Oracle markets their product for the big boys and large databases. They are expensive. I just paid £30,000 for 25 user licences and 25 developer licences (I am the one and only developer BTW). 25 is the minimum you can buy at £550 a pop. Plus on top you may (depending on your other licences) pay for Oracle Reports or Oracle Discoverer. Neither are particularly good. Oracle has a cr*ppy data import and export tool and their task schedular is b0ll0x. I still can get used to all the redo and undo stuff and the transaction model. Can't tell you how many times I think I've done a update only to find hours later I haven't.

SQL server markets more towards small team systems but I think it can do a lot more. As expected it integrates very well with other MS products. Its a snap to get it working with MS Directory Server (?) and Office. MS is also adding a lot of the features that Oracle has (check out the 2008 version features on MSDN) and it is fast. I has an excellent data import and export facility. task scheduling is a snap and the query analyser is far ahead of anything Oracle has. It comes with Reporting services and OLAP included for "free".

Of the two I prefer SQL Server for its ease of use and brilliant access from COM to run bits and pieces. Bang for the buck, it can't be beat in my book. Only "Oracle shops" should still buy Oracle - everyone else should seriously consider SQL Server.

[oraclesmith]

Read the first few chapters of 'Expert Oracle Database Architecture' by Tom Kyte, then you'll understand why Oracle technology is worth it's big price tag.

[EqualOpportunities]

Oracle = Macho Guys huffing and puffing

SQL Server does just the same with out all the faff

Maybe - but SQL Server can only 'do it' on a fecking Windoze box that needs rebooting three times a day...

And, FWIW, how good can SQL Server be when all you have to do to create a database is right click --> create database. FFS.

[thunderlizard]

That used to be the case, but lately SQL Server has got much beefier and closed up the gap.

[Captain Lockheed]

That used to be the case, but lately SQL Server has got much beefier and closed up the gap.

SQL Server is definitely improving, but as someone else has said - it's shackled to Windows which rules it out for higher end work

[MrsGoof]

SQL/MP any one?

[portseven]

SQL Server is definitely improving, but as someone else has said - it's shackled to Windows which rules it out for higher end work

Platform independence is deffo a big plus, the ability to run it on a Windows Box or a zSeries to a Linux box