Oracle vs. SQL Server
-
I have seen several articles online stating that Oracle is less secure than SQL Server, and is harder to patch. I was wondering how the current versions (11g and 2008) compared based on user experiences; if anyone here has used both, which would you recommend (and why)? And how does the performance compare, generally speaking? Thank you... http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2008/en/us/compare-oracle.aspx http://www.databasesecurity.com/dbsec/comparison.pdf http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/03/13/Database-expert-says-Oracle-trails-Microsoft-on-patch-management_1.html
-
I have seen several articles online stating that Oracle is less secure than SQL Server, and is harder to patch. I was wondering how the current versions (11g and 2008) compared based on user experiences; if anyone here has used both, which would you recommend (and why)? And how does the performance compare, generally speaking? Thank you... http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2008/en/us/compare-oracle.aspx http://www.databasesecurity.com/dbsec/comparison.pdf http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/03/13/Database-expert-says-Oracle-trails-Microsoft-on-patch-management_1.html
IMHO they are aimed at 2 different markets, SQL Server works best with smaller environments (non enterprise) while Orable is excellent for truly meaty data with dedicated DBA and hardware support infrastructure. I am a huge proponent of SQL Server b/c I work mostly with departmental data and limited support infrastructure. Orable requires a LOT more infrastructure support than SQL Server. I know of no small scale developers/departments that use Orable by choice. As for security, both have more security than I currently need so the finer points at the extreme are moot. Orable is by far the quickest and out performs SQL Server, this anecdotal as I am currently using both with the same data in both systems. As with most MS stuff the UI for SQL SErver is dramatically better than Orable - you really need to go to 3rd party tools (TOAD) for Orable and TOAD is a very complex beastie.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
I have seen several articles online stating that Oracle is less secure than SQL Server, and is harder to patch. I was wondering how the current versions (11g and 2008) compared based on user experiences; if anyone here has used both, which would you recommend (and why)? And how does the performance compare, generally speaking? Thank you... http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2008/en/us/compare-oracle.aspx http://www.databasesecurity.com/dbsec/comparison.pdf http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/03/13/Database-expert-says-Oracle-trails-Microsoft-on-patch-management_1.html
I'll second what Mycroft said. And I'll add that the operating system and other infrastructure contributes to security. I've only used Oracle on OpenVMS systems with no Internet connectivity -- you can't get much more secure than that. On the other hand, Oracle tends to be much more expensive than SQL Server, and Sql Server has a lot of nifty features. Basically, pick either one, not any of the others. And certainly not Cache X| .
-
I'll second what Mycroft said. And I'll add that the operating system and other infrastructure contributes to security. I've only used Oracle on OpenVMS systems with no Internet connectivity -- you can't get much more secure than that. On the other hand, Oracle tends to be much more expensive than SQL Server, and Sql Server has a lot of nifty features. Basically, pick either one, not any of the others. And certainly not Cache X| .
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
And certainly not Cache X| .
Cache has a great advantage over both SQL Server and Oracle: you can still write your programs with MUMPS, an advanced programming language with included database. And forget those relational tables, use hierarchical globals instead.
-
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
And certainly not Cache X| .
Cache has a great advantage over both SQL Server and Oracle: you can still write your programs with MUMPS, an advanced programming language with included database. And forget those relational tables, use hierarchical globals instead.
It has the unacceptable disadvantage of not being SQL92 compliant... otherwise it's just fine. :~
-
I have seen several articles online stating that Oracle is less secure than SQL Server, and is harder to patch. I was wondering how the current versions (11g and 2008) compared based on user experiences; if anyone here has used both, which would you recommend (and why)? And how does the performance compare, generally speaking? Thank you... http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2008/en/us/compare-oracle.aspx http://www.databasesecurity.com/dbsec/comparison.pdf http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/03/13/Database-expert-says-Oracle-trails-Microsoft-on-patch-management_1.html
There are lots of Difference are there..
Oracle support varchar2, Sqlserver dont
Oracle support dual , Sqlserver Dont
Oracle Support P/L Sql where as Sqlserver Support TSQL
And many more.. These are the main difference.
-
I have seen several articles online stating that Oracle is less secure than SQL Server, and is harder to patch. I was wondering how the current versions (11g and 2008) compared based on user experiences; if anyone here has used both, which would you recommend (and why)? And how does the performance compare, generally speaking? Thank you... http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2008/en/us/compare-oracle.aspx http://www.databasesecurity.com/dbsec/comparison.pdf http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/03/13/Database-expert-says-Oracle-trails-Microsoft-on-patch-management_1.html
Timothy CIAN wrote:
how does the performance compare, generally speaking?
In my experience that all depends on the DBA, some DBAs are good and can make anything sing, others not so much.
Common sense is admitting there is cause and effect and that you can exert some control over what you understand.