This is a common question on forums. But they just compare the
features. At present RDBMS industry has matured a lot and the big
three have strong competitors too like EnterpriseDB, MySQL etc.

While comparing MS SQL Server, Oracle and DB2, an author writes in a
book:

IBM DB2
--------------
Reliability: Very reliable
Situation: Large to very large databases
Managebility: easy.

Oracle
--------------
Reliability: Very reliable
Situation: Medium to large databases
Managebility: difficult.

SQL Server
--------------
Reliability: low
Situation: small to medium sized databases
Managebility: easy.

Though, the above is the view of that author, I want to know which
RDBMS to use and in what situation, including open source.

If one is working in a company than it is the headache of the
company's project manager or product specialist to make this choice.
But I am running a mISV, so all decisions depend upon me. When you
have plenty of choices, you have to select carefully depending upon
customer's budget, data-size, scalability etc.

For SQL Server, I am not sure, if Microsoft continues to support old
SQL Server formats. Or they , as usual, at a point force to shift to a
new version.

Oracle is unnecessarily complicated and you have to involve a
dedicated DBA. Even, as Oracle claims it suitable for small-to-mid-
sized companies, it's cost and cryptic working is very difficult.

Rohit <rpk.general (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

distributable, RDBMS. See <http://database.profectus.com.au>. Some of
them limit the scale and/or operating system but for most applications
a comparison of the features, which may include ease of
administration, is all you need.

On Aug 13, 8:29 am, Rohit <rpk.gene... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:
Just remember when looking at these things from a book reference:
books in the software industry go out of date very quickly.

I'm not convinced that the management of Oracle is more difficult than
the other big products.. And Oracle handles large databases, at least
as large as DB/2. As far as Oracle needing a DBA, I would question
the installation adn maintenance of any large database without a DBA.

So yes you do need a features list to choose a RDBMS product, but
among those features are attributes of manageability.

Disclaimer: I use Oracle. It can be pricey. But the benefits of
multiversioning over locking are just too much to ignore in many
applications.

Ed

Does DB2 not support Multi-versioning? Now SQL Server 2005 also has
Snapshot Isolation.
See

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/l.../ms345124.aspx

For startups or mISVs, is it possible to keep DBA? What Oracle claims
in Oracle Magazine that it is suitable for small-large businesses? In
small organizations, you can't afford a DBA from start.

On Aug 14, 5:33 am, Ed Prochak <edproc... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Please don't top post.

On Aug 14, 1:25 am, Rohit <rpk.gene... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:
Something new has been added I see. So SQL Server finally has "row
versioning".
That's good. Though I note that they claim:

"When these new options are not set, SQL Server 2005 default database
behavior works as in earlier versions. This default behavior will
continue to be the preferred behavior in many systems in which
transaction processing throughput and performance are the highest
goals."

Given that Oracle's multiversioning has long outperformed SQL Server,
this claim seems stretching things a bit. Though with applications
tuned to using locking, switching to multiversioning could cause those
applications to use the database poorly (ig, slower).

I haven't used DB/2 in a long time. It did not have multiversioning
when I used it.

for startups, if you can't aford a DBA (even on contract) then can you
afford programmers?

The point is if you want to go cheap, you will get cheap results.
Remember the old ad:
pay me now, or PAY me later.


You need someone to take the DBA role. They need data modelling skills
and Admin skills. Specific experience in Oracle helps because of the
different processing model (multiversioning versus locking). If you
can get someone that can also work as a developer, you will be in good
shape.

I would think an ISV needs a DBA more, since the products sold might
be installed in different environments and platforms. A programmer may
not realize the different requirements that result in different
configurations in the database.

[NOTE: part of the conversation is vague because we haven't agreed on
what is a small business. What resources are available for the
startup? an ISV is an ortogonal concept. ISVs can range from small to
very large.]

it comes down to what do you really need. here's an analogy:
Would you try to start a world-class restaurant without a chef?
would you hire a cook from McDonalds instead?

ed

I agree that Oracle is a robust database and a DBA is a must. In my
case, I'll have to play the role of a DBA and Developer both. Still,
Oracle's working is cumbersome and not user-friendly. Whenever, I have
deployed applications using Oracle, I had frequent complaints of TNS.
And when I used other products like SQL Server, EnterpriseDB etc.,
things were fine for months. It is not necessary for a robust RDBMS to
be cryptic at the same time.

I just evaluated DB2 Express-C. I must say, it has the best
administration tool I have ever seen. It is highly documented at each
step as compared to Oracle which has the least documented interface. I
am not an Anti-Oracle guy. But what I have seen from years, that
Oracle lacks user-friendliness.