Oracle
-
http://www.crn.com/sections/News/Top\_News.asp?RSID=CRN&ArticleID=33392 Is Oracle really that good? I don't have any expeirence with it, but it seems like allot of money for what they give you.
-
http://www.crn.com/sections/News/Top\_News.asp?RSID=CRN&ArticleID=33392 Is Oracle really that good? I don't have any expeirence with it, but it seems like allot of money for what they give you.
-
http://www.crn.com/sections/News/Top\_News.asp?RSID=CRN&ArticleID=33392 Is Oracle really that good? I don't have any expeirence with it, but it seems like allot of money for what they give you.
Welcome to the real world of non-mass market software. It is very VERY very common that software companies charge an update subscription fee. Here is a list of some of the software we use here: MS Visual Studio - Free updates Wonderware IOToolkit - Support fee Wise Install for Windows - ??? Not sure Northern Dynamics OPC Toolkit - Support fee (stopped using last year but a DAMN GOOD toolkit.) Rational Purify/Pure Coverage - Support fee What Oracle does really shouldn't shock anybody who has been in the industry for a while. P.S. I never thought I would read this in an article ...that Microsoft does a better job supporting customers. :omg: :omg: Tim Smith I know what you're thinking punk, you're thinking did he spell check this document? Well, to tell you the truth I kinda forgot myself in all this excitement. But being this here's CodeProject, the most powerful forums in the world and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question, Do I feel lucky? Well do ya punk?
-
http://www.crn.com/sections/News/Top\_News.asp?RSID=CRN&ArticleID=33392 Is Oracle really that good? I don't have any expeirence with it, but it seems like allot of money for what they give you.
Oracle is the biggest steaming pile of dog doodoo on God's green earth. In otherwords, I HATE Oracle. Jason Gerard
-
http://www.crn.com/sections/News/Top\_News.asp?RSID=CRN&ArticleID=33392 Is Oracle really that good? I don't have any expeirence with it, but it seems like allot of money for what they give you.
Jacksonh wrote: Is Oracle really that good? Yes it is. And if you consider a larger installation (>2 GB RAM) SQL Server is actually more expensive! /A
-
Jacksonh wrote: Is Oracle really that good? Yes it is. And if you consider a larger installation (>2 GB RAM) SQL Server is actually more expensive! /A
-
What would you say are the benifits of using Oracle over SQL server? Not trying to start a fight I just want to know.
I haven't actually used Oracle, but I heard that Oracle is better than SQL Server due to the way it handles locks on records. I think Oracles locks rows individually, while SQL Server cannot lock rows individually and has to lock a page(s) of which the row is located. I don't know if that is still or was true or not. The performance thoroughput would thus greater with Oracle if it does in fact do this and SQL Server doesn't.
-
I haven't actually used Oracle, but I heard that Oracle is better than SQL Server due to the way it handles locks on records. I think Oracles locks rows individually, while SQL Server cannot lock rows individually and has to lock a page(s) of which the row is located. I don't know if that is still or was true or not. The performance thoroughput would thus greater with Oracle if it does in fact do this and SQL Server doesn't.
SQL Server used to do this up until 6.5 only. Since 7.0 it supports row-level locks.
-
What would you say are the benifits of using Oracle over SQL server? Not trying to start a fight I just want to know.
Jacksonh wrote: What would you say are the benifits of using Oracle over SQL server? Not trying to start a fight I just want to know. Ok, my previous statement is based partly on functionality and (mostly) on scalability / availability / performance. At least in my working environment, SQL Server isn't an option when you need LARGE systems. SQL Server provides options for clustering and partitioning, but remove one node in the cluster and the database in gone/down. In Oracle9i you can run the Real Application Server (RAC), which is an evolution over Parallell Server, in (very simplified) which all nodes makes up one instance, and as long as one node remains functional the database is up. IMO Oracle also is better documented in low-level areas, which makes hard tuning possible (far beyond statement level). Oracle also have some pretty good intermedia (text,wave,video) LOB support which are used in many interesting applications. Alas, it all depends on your particular needs. If you don't need advanced LOB support, scalability option, high availability environments or a database that runs on many operating systems, pick something else. If your database is small, you may use pretty much anything as long as it supports your application needs. At least in Europe, SQL Server pricing is inexpensive in the standard edition, and fairly high in enterprise ed. (at least std ed. times 8 !!!), and considering you must use enterprise edition if you want to utilize more than 2 GB RAM, I would say Oracle is a bargain. Soo, while Oracle pricing won't scare too many, I can understand that people get pissed by not having security patches available in public! /A
-
Jacksonh wrote: What would you say are the benifits of using Oracle over SQL server? Not trying to start a fight I just want to know. Ok, my previous statement is based partly on functionality and (mostly) on scalability / availability / performance. At least in my working environment, SQL Server isn't an option when you need LARGE systems. SQL Server provides options for clustering and partitioning, but remove one node in the cluster and the database in gone/down. In Oracle9i you can run the Real Application Server (RAC), which is an evolution over Parallell Server, in (very simplified) which all nodes makes up one instance, and as long as one node remains functional the database is up. IMO Oracle also is better documented in low-level areas, which makes hard tuning possible (far beyond statement level). Oracle also have some pretty good intermedia (text,wave,video) LOB support which are used in many interesting applications. Alas, it all depends on your particular needs. If you don't need advanced LOB support, scalability option, high availability environments or a database that runs on many operating systems, pick something else. If your database is small, you may use pretty much anything as long as it supports your application needs. At least in Europe, SQL Server pricing is inexpensive in the standard edition, and fairly high in enterprise ed. (at least std ed. times 8 !!!), and considering you must use enterprise edition if you want to utilize more than 2 GB RAM, I would say Oracle is a bargain. Soo, while Oracle pricing won't scare too many, I can understand that people get pissed by not having security patches available in public! /A
-
http://www.crn.com/sections/News/Top\_News.asp?RSID=CRN&ArticleID=33392 Is Oracle really that good? I don't have any expeirence with it, but it seems like allot of money for what they give you.
With corporate customers it's not that big a deal, since everyone buys a support contract. If your making a large purchace, you can usually weedle them into throwing a 1 or 2 year service contract in for free. Oracle also has its hooks into a lot of major companies. For example, almost all of the drug and bio-tech firms use Oracle based software for their clinical databases. A clinical DB installation starts at around $100,000 and can easily go into the millions. It then has to be customized and validated, which could double the initial cost. And people wonder why medications cost so much...
-
http://www.crn.com/sections/News/Top\_News.asp?RSID=CRN&ArticleID=33392 Is Oracle really that good? I don't have any expeirence with it, but it seems like allot of money for what they give you.
Visit the Transaction processing council. http://www.tpc.org/ As far as fixed cost goes: http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluation/compare/pricecomparison.asp
-
Jacksonh wrote: What would you say are the benifits of using Oracle over SQL server? Not trying to start a fight I just want to know. Ok, my previous statement is based partly on functionality and (mostly) on scalability / availability / performance. At least in my working environment, SQL Server isn't an option when you need LARGE systems. SQL Server provides options for clustering and partitioning, but remove one node in the cluster and the database in gone/down. In Oracle9i you can run the Real Application Server (RAC), which is an evolution over Parallell Server, in (very simplified) which all nodes makes up one instance, and as long as one node remains functional the database is up. IMO Oracle also is better documented in low-level areas, which makes hard tuning possible (far beyond statement level). Oracle also have some pretty good intermedia (text,wave,video) LOB support which are used in many interesting applications. Alas, it all depends on your particular needs. If you don't need advanced LOB support, scalability option, high availability environments or a database that runs on many operating systems, pick something else. If your database is small, you may use pretty much anything as long as it supports your application needs. At least in Europe, SQL Server pricing is inexpensive in the standard edition, and fairly high in enterprise ed. (at least std ed. times 8 !!!), and considering you must use enterprise edition if you want to utilize more than 2 GB RAM, I would say Oracle is a bargain. Soo, while Oracle pricing won't scare too many, I can understand that people get pissed by not having security patches available in public! /A
Andreas Hallberg wrote: SQL Server provides options for clustering and partitioning, but remove one node in the cluster and the database in gone/down. Clustering support was a little flaky in the early MSSQL 7, IIRC it only supported load-balancing clustering support. MSSQL 2000 offers failover clustering support which all the machines in the cluster have the same data, though it requires Win2000.