I stumbled upon a a technical white paper that provides a feature comparison between MSSQL 2005 (Yukon) and Oracle 10g databases. Here are a few points I noted from the paper, quoting:
MSSQL database was and still is several steps ahead of Oracle in such great features like the ease of installation, configuration, performing basic tuning and the use of development tools.
The important limitation of Oracle always was the need for a highly skillful Oracle DBA, while almost every experienced MSSQL developer can perform DBA role successfully.
Oracle 10g “data grid†in reality is nothing more than just another buzz used mostly in the business, since Oracle 10g supports grids of 4 to 8 instances on most platforms.
Unfortunately data pump output is yet another proprietary Oracle binary format.
MSSQL databases structure is simpler and designed better than Oracle tablespace.
Implementation of something similar to MSSQL Identity by using Oracle sequence would require reflecting the sequence name in the application or creating a trigger for each table/sequence pair.
The authors also write about major limitations of MSSQL prior to Yukon, useful Oracle features that will have no compatible features in MSSQL 2005 and useful MSSQL features that have no similar features in Oracle 10g. Read the full paper here (PDF).
Related articles:
- Do SQL ISO standards matter?
- 5 Recent Oracle Security Related Documents
- Oracle docs virtual book Firefox plugin
- The Lazy Developer’s Way to Populate a Surrogate Key
- When The Combination of an Oracle Sequence and a PLS_INTEGER is Deadly
Tagged 10g, MySQL | Comments Closed | Trackbacks Closed
forgot one more oracle con, it gulps ‘big bucks’ at an alarming rate
November 2nd, 2005, at 12:58 am #Sounds even an balanced, not
Cheers
Tim…
November 2nd, 2005, at 2:51 am #Ack, the grammar in the PDF is driving me crazy! One would think that they would have done a grammar check before publishing.
Tom
November 2nd, 2005, at 7:16 am #Can you please provide a link to the whitepaper? Thanks
November 2nd, 2005, at 7:33 am #Tim Toennies, you missed the link to the whitepaper, it is already there, in the last sentence of the last paragraph.
Tim Hall, I do not expect an even and balanced opinion form a software vendor trying to sell you a service or a product. However, I always search for provable facts.
November 2nd, 2005, at 8:23 am #hmmm…the points you “noted” are a bit one-sided. I take it you use SQL Server for your dev. Since a lot of folks who read your post are not going to bother reading the actual white paper, you could do both platforms justice by pointing out the pros and cons of both. Just a thought.
November 2nd, 2005, at 9:11 am #Johnny, if I point out what it has been written about Oracle, especially its “weakness” or “cons” as others perceive it, this does not mean that I do not use Oracle or I use another product like MSSQL. In fact, I have been an Oracle developer since the early nineties and many of the readers of my blog are Oracle professionals. However, I’m not a blind follower of any product.
In my opinion, It does not hurt to know the “competition”, in fact one should learn as much as possible about “the other” product, but be specialized in one.
You’re right, however, that the points I noted “are a bit one-sided”, and that was intentional. As an Oracle professional, I often get into a discussion about the differences between Oracle and MSSQL (or other databases), and usually, similar points (and more) get thrown at me. I just wanted to stir a little bit of a (constructive) discussion — Thanks.
November 2nd, 2005, at 9:36 am #I don’t get it: apparently according to this genius, SQL Server is “better coded” (whatever the heck that means). Yet, in the same article he mentions that because Oracle can run in optimistic locking as fast as SS does in pessimistic locking, SS needs to “otpimize its code a little bit”.
I just wish that for once someone with a clue about IT reviewed this sort of paper before it’s let out. Having someone with a basic knowledge of English grammar do it as well wouldn’t be out of place.
As is, it’s another waste of time, space and paper - if anyone ever prints it.
November 2nd, 2005, at 3:03 pm #I actually enjoyed reading the article. Thanks for link. Interesting to watch the people’s reaction as some are looking for content, scope and appreciate amount of hard work been done. And others like Nuno just arrogant and clueless
November 2nd, 2005, at 5:42 pm #A grande vantagem …
March 10th, 2006, at 7:11 am #Num cliente uma base de dados grande demorava varios minutos no SQLSERVER.
No oracle demorou segundos. Em empresas grandes isso é algo critico e é o suficiente para se trocar de banco de dados.
I got the opportunity to work with both of them, the only thing that i can say is that the advantage of One compensates the disadvantage of the Other, be it in terms of speed, cost, reliability, installation etc…
Each one of us chooses according to our means and requirements….
July 13th, 2007, at 5:47 am #Hi,
I am currently working in Sql and planning to start learning oracle.
I was looking for some advise/ guidance as to which one of them has got better scope and market value in future.
I have been working in Sql server 2005 for almost an year.
I would be greatful if you could guide me for the same.
Regards
August 8th, 2007, at 11:15 pm #New collection of .NET interview Questions
at http://www.dotnetuncle.com
August 21st, 2007, at 12:37 am #