Is Microsoft any good at back end stuff

[bodnobal]

If been asked to save a few quid and MS look good on the back end with SQL Server. Currently have Oracle but it costs a fortune and users moan that it is slow etc etc?

Size of database is about 3 terabytes, I'm not sure SQL Server can cope.

[threaded]

No.

It's not very good at front end stuff either.

And the middle stuff looks more than iffy.

But that .Net stuff is the business.

[BlasterBates]

The Oracle isn't slow because of Oracle, its slow because the database is badly setup.

You should suggest to your client somebody tune the database.

[scotspine]

http://www.microsoft.com/sql/solutio...migratewp.mspx

[zathras]

If been asked to save a few quid and MS look good on the back end with SQL Server. Currently have Oracle but it costs a fortune and users moan that it is slow etc etc?

Size of database is about 3 terabytes, I'm not sure SQL Server can cope.

Might be worth looking at SQL 2005. I know it is just out but changes to SQL have been directed at ensuring those who use it will be able to for some fairly large databases, at a cost well under that of Oracle

As has been pointed out hows about looking at the setup of the database. I remember my first bit of Oracle which took nearly a day to run when it was first implemented but less than 1 hour when I finished. That was with the help of some of the more experienced Oracle developers.

[sasguru]

When I looked at the SQL 2005-Beta it promised some pretty impressive BI capabilities - don't know if they've been implemented

[Tin Pot]

SQL Server is my career, so I'm biased, but SQL Server 2005 finally starts to seriously compete with Oracle for mission critical databases.

You'll need more than sheer size to compare differences, but SQL Server will do it cheaper, and probably quicker.

What are your transaction volumes, SLAs and availability requirements?

[DimPrawn]

What's wrong with Access 95 ffs?

[Joe Black]

If been asked to save a few quid and MS look good on the back end with SQL Server. Currently have Oracle but it costs a fortune and users moan that it is slow etc etc?

Size of database is about 3 terabytes, I'm not sure SQL Server can cope.

Part comes down to DB design. With very large single databases yep, Oracle has generally had a better reputation. Costs though, unless they've changed recently, from my experience have always been a lot more. Indeed Oracle is about the only major database vendor which will actually charge almost double simply because you're running a dual-core chip on the server.

Unless you can get a good price I'd go for SQL Server, why?...well some years ago I worked for Lloyds on what was perhaps the most DB intensive project I've been on, where they had to analyse every policy they'd written for the last 30-40 years...they considered Oracle, but....

[DimPrawn]

I think this

http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc...rf_results.asp


and this

http://www.tpc.org/tpch/results/tpch...rf_results.asp


should help