Can anyone provide a comparative analysis between these two databases
that are halfway objective?

I have found one study:

http://www.theedison.com/index.php/articles/170

Has anyone read this study and/or have any comments?

Replication and Clustering are important.

I attended one meeting where a Project Manager stated that MS SQL
server is faster and requires less people to manage thereby saving on
manageability costs.......I almost fell out of my chair.....

Thanks
Mr. Bob

On Tue, 02 May 2006 17:41:52 -0700, Mr Bob wrote:

The Project Manager is absoutely correct - in some specific scenarios.
When using SQL Server trained personnel to implement and manage both
Oracle and SQL Server environments, SQL Server is always faster than
Oracle and SQL Server is always cheaper than Oracle.

However, when using skill sets appropriately trained in the technology and
when using intelligent management and project principals, the choice is
not always that clear cut.

I'm sure we can 'Get the Facts' somewhere. Typically as a footnote on
page 17 of a 65 page report ... but that footnote extracted as a quote is
all we really need.

Flip side is to read Tom Kyte's book that starts explaining what the
difference are and why the two envoronmenbt must be handled differently.
(Search for Tom Kyte and Apress.)

Years ago, a wise sales rep told me: "To understand how [why] a person
behaves, find out how the are compensated."

--
Hans Forbrich
Canada-wide Oracle training and consulting
mailto: Fuzzy.GreyBeard_at_gmail.com
*** Top posting [replies] guarantees I won't respond. ***

Mr Bob wrote:
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with Hans. The latest
studies show Oracle easier to manage than SQL Server and if one
is comparing Apples to Apples meaning Oracle Standard Edition
to SQL Server Enterprise then Oracle is not more expensive. One
only finds Oracle more expensive when applying the logic that
EE = EE which is not true in this case.

From my standpoint there are many things that Oracle SE does that
Microsoft can only hope to some day achieve. Does SQL Server have
a tecnology equivalent to RAC? No! Not for any price? To BEFORE
TRIGGERS? Not for any price? To sequences? To many other basic
Oracle capabilities? Not for any price. Can one create a secure
audit trail in SQL Server to comply with SarbOx? HIPPA? FACTA?
Basel II?

I'd suggest your product manager go Oracle and then invest in
providing some training for the employees so that they can use
the tool effectively.

Daniel Morgan
www.psoug.org

On Wed, 03 May 2006 09:09:14 -0700, DA Morgan wrote:

Respectfully, or not, we are *not* disagreeing ...

I was referring to an apples to a bananas comparison, in which the bananas
always win when they control the presses.

In a pure apples to apples comparison, I find that Oracle seems to be
roughly the same price and cost.

Then, taking into account the mangos that are inherently available with
Oracle, (multi-platform, DBMS_, UTL_, etc.) things tend to swing toward
Oracle - in my environments. But then we're into apples, bananas and
mangoes ... so who can really tell?

I still think the PM is basing comments on either past or future
(potentially risk averse) compensation. Probably based on a specific set
of experiences. After all, we tend to go with the devil we know .... much
easier than getting the real facts. ;-)

--
Hans Forbrich
Canada-wide Oracle training and consulting
mailto: Fuzzy.GreyBeard_at_gmail.com
*** Top posting [replies] guarantees I won't respond. ***

Hans,

I did catch your comment concerning SQL server folks working with
Oracle....and the condition that in specific circumstances SQL server
is faster.....etc....

Can you point me to the studies you refer to showing Oracle easier to
manager than SQL Server?

Thanks,
Bob

























t

On Wed, 03 May 2006 17:43:26 -0700, Mr Bob wrote:

http://www.oracle.com/technology/tec...s-ss2k-TCO.pdf

Yes, it's dated. So what ... typical marketing tactics mean that you use
what is relevant and ignore the parts that are not relevant. Besides, a
lot of sites still use both those technologies. And I'm sure both sides
have documents and 'independent studies' that prove the upgrades are x%
easier to manage.

You do realize that putting any report on the table is simply a political
ploy .... either people will agree and not dig, or they will
counter-argue. In the latter case they will find hundreds of 'yes-but'
situations that invalidate the report. Including, "it's too old; it's too
new; too few people use that version; that's not the way we do it here"

You want perhaps things other than public reports that anyone can get
simply using a decent search engine? That would fall into the 'benchmark'
arena, and it is illegal to publish benchmarks witout the express consent
of the vendors.

And, of course, my personal experience is anecdotal - unless there is a
solid and verifyable document to support it - and therefore counts for
absolutely nothing. As does the PM's.

--
Hans Forbrich
Canada-wide Oracle training and consulting
mailto: Fuzzy.GreyBeard_at_gmail.com
*** Top posting [replies] guarantees I won't respond. ***

Well Said!

Regards,
Bob