| Differenciate between [message #55065] |
Wed, 01 January 2003 20:50  |
hamid
Messages: 14
Registered: February 2002
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Would anybody tell me the difference between oralce server and sql server.and i want to see the interface of both servers.and in both server whether the command and statements are same?
thank you very much to help me in advance.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Differenciate between [message #55083 is a reply to message #55065] |
Thu, 02 January 2003 04:49  |
Raja
Messages: 57
Registered: March 2000
|
Member |
|
|
Firstly, Oracle is available for wide variety of platform like Sun Solaris,linux,NT etc., SQL Server is only available for Win NT.
Performance wise oracle can support TB of data but sql server just a few GB DB.
Oracle is highly secure.
features like partitioning and better locking mechanism for data exist only in oracle
|
|
|
|
| Re: Differenciate between [message #55097 is a reply to message #55065] |
Thu, 02 January 2003 17:19 |
Trifon Anguelov
Messages: 514
Registered: June 2002
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Every database has its strengths for particular OS and task. You have to see which one best works for you, by comparing it with the other choices. One very old such comparison is Oracle vs. SQL Server. Here are some arguments in favor of Oracle:
"Microsoft Sqlserver 2000 versus Oracle
SQL SERVER TECHNICAL LIMITATIONS
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 flavours 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 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.
3. PERFORMANCE and TUNING
a. No control of sorting (memory allocation)
b. No control over SQL Caching (memory allocation)
c. No control over storage/space management to prevent fragmentation. 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.
d. No range partioning of large tables and indexes eg. in Oracle a large 100 GB table 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. 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 task.
4. MISSING OBJECT TYPES
a. No public or private synonyms
b. no independent sequences
c. no packages ie. collection of procedures and functions.
5. PROGRAMMING
a. Significant extensions to the ANSI SQL-92 standard which means converting applications to a
different database later will be a challenge (code re-write).
b. 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. Stored Procedures are not compiled until executed (overhead).
d. No ability to read/write from external files from a stored procedure.
e. Oracle Sql and Pl/Sql are more powerful and can do things better 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 a complicated way. In Oracle it takes one sql statement grouping by the
trunc(,'month') function.
6. CLUSTER TECHNOLOGY In clustering technology, Oracle is light years ahead, since Sql server has
nothing like Oracle Parallel server - 2 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 cluster, 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.
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).
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."
Hope that helps,
clio_usa
OCP - DBA
Visit our Web site
|
|
|
|
] 
Blog
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
