At lease 10 difference between oracle 8i and

sql server 2000?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : OpenKnowledge : Moderator:
One Thread [email protected]

Can you mail me at lease 10 difference between oracle 8i and sql server 2000?

-- chandra sekhara reddy.m ([email protected]), November 07,

2001

Answers

Will mail you soon as possible.

-- SVR.ARVIND ([email protected]), December 31, 2001.

pl send the difference between oracle 8i and sql server 2000 more over advantage and
disadvantage of oracle & sql Server

-- Sunil kumar ([email protected]), January 31, 2002.

I dont know the answer

-- Roopak kumar sahoo ([email protected]), February 23, 2002.

plz mail me as soon as possable .. thanx

-- anna ([email protected]), April 07, 2002.

No idea..!Hungry to know about the fact..!

-- S.Prasad Panda ([email protected]), April 23, 2002.

Security is high in Oracle. And it will work fine in any environments like UNIX,
SOLARIES OR WINDOWS-NT. Where as SQL SERVER performs more on
WINDOWS-NT only. There are certain futures which one will miss, if he uses SQL
SERVER without Windiws-NT server.

Thanks.

-- Prasad Panda ([email protected]), April 24, 2002.

You Cannot connect the database which is running in the Windows95 from an NT
Network.
-- Ravi ([email protected]), July 04, 2002.

plz i want to difference between sql and oracle kindly help me.

-- asif khan ([email protected]), July 10, 2002.

Plz I want too. thanks

-- pejetaji ([email protected]), August 25, 2002.

what is the difrence betweem the SQL server and Oracol

-- Basma Tobia ([email protected]), October 15, 2002.

what is the advantage and disadvantage of SQL server and Oracle

-- Nassir Gappy ([email protected]), October 16, 2002.

SQL Server is usually easier to setup/configure, and get going - especially in terms of
integrating into other Microsoft applications.

-- Sanjeev ([email protected]), December 05, 2002.

What is the difference between MS SQL Server and Oracle??

-- Tanvir Hussain chatha ([email protected]), February 18, 2003.

1. Oracle runs on many platforms, SQL on Windows only 2. Oracle includes IFS
(Internet File System), Java integration, SQL is more of a pure database 3. Oracle
requires client install and setup (Not difficult, but very UNIX-like for Windows users) 4.
SQL is #1 in Cost/Performance and overall Performance, although Oracle will refute that
5. Replication is much easier in SQL (I have been at clients where even the Oracle
consultant couldn't get it working w/oracle) 6. Failover support in SQL is much, much
easier 7. JDBC support is much better in Oracle, although Microsoft is working on it 8.
ODBC support in both 9. SQL is ANSI-SQL '92 compliant, making it easier to convert to
another ANSI compliant database, theoretically anyway (truth is every database has
proprietary extensions). Oracle is generally more proprietary and their main goal is to
keep their customers locked-in. 10. SQL natively supports ODBC, OLEDB, XML, XML
Query, XML updates. Oracle natively supports proprietary connections, JDBC. Not sure
about XML support though. 11. SQL Server is much easier to administrate, with GUI and
command- line tools. Most of Oracle is command-line (Back in SQL 6.5 days I had a
customer who was so proud that after a day's worth of work he had managed to script his
database. I showed him how it was a 3 click operation in SQL ;-) 12. Oracle requires add-
ons for transaction monitors, failover, etc. SQL has COM+, uses NT clustering and
generally has everything built-in 13. SQL Analysis Services is included (A very powerful
OLAP server). For Oracle it is a separate purchase.

Hope this helps some.

-- mark ([email protected]), March 01, 2003.

Is the query language the same for sql server 2000 and oracle? What is the difference
between pl/sql and sql?

-- Sukhbir Singh ([email protected]), March 18, 2003.

Is the sql ,pl/sql same on sql server and Oracle?

-- Mamatha Yelwal ([email protected]), March 26, 2003.

could you please tell me the difference between oracle 7,8,8i,9,11

-- Pradeep Ragupathy ([email protected]), March 27, 2003.

Oracle will be used especially in large database. But if we use sql server in such a
environment, the data processing will become very slower. Oracle database very closely
supports Java rather than Sql server.

-- V.Muralidharan ([email protected]), April 07, 2003.

Oracle 7 was RDBMS, i.e it was a relation database and the one's after that i.e. 8 onwards
Oracle introduced the concept of OODBMS. Which stands for Object Oriented Database
Management Systems. With every major release Oracle has initiated a lot of changes for
the better. Like (1) Getting PL/SQL closer to ANSI SQL standards (2) Automatic
Management of Undo from 9i onwards (3) Introduction of special Grouping operators for
queries (4) ISQL env for easier query processing (5) RAC (I dunno much about it) (6)
AS(Application Server, integrated into the database)

-- humdum ([email protected]), April 23, 2003.

SQL server GUI is easy to work. SQL serever is easy to maintain. Orcal data procssing is
very good compared to SQL server

-- C.N.Jha ([email protected]), July 04, 2003.

PLEASE SEND 10 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ORACLE SQLSERVER2000

-- SUNITHAMADHUSUDHAN ([email protected]), July 14,
2003.

Here is a brief comparison between Oracle 9i and SQL Server 2000. Platform
dependancy SQL Server is only operable on the Windows platform, a major limitation for
it to be an enterprise solution. Oracle is available on multiple platforms such as Windows,
all flavors of Unix from vendors such as IBM, Sun, Digital, HP, Sequent, etc. and VAX-
VMS, as well as MVS. The multi-platform nature of Oracle makes it a true enterprise
solution. Locking and concurrency SQL Server has no multi-version consistency model,
which means that "writers block readers and readers block writers" to ensure data
integrity. In contrast, with Oracle, the rule is "readers don't block writers and writers don't
block readers." This is possible without compromising data integrity because Oracle will
dynamically re-create a read-consistent image for a reader of any requested data that has
been changed but not yet committed. In other words, the reader will see the data as it was
before the writer began changing it (until the writer commits). SQL Server's locking
scheme is much simpler (less mature) and will result in a lot of delays/waits in a heavy
OLTP environment. Also, SQL Server will escalate row locks to page level locks when
too many rows on a page are locked. This locks rows which are uninvolved in any
updates for no good reason. Performance and tuning a. In SQL Server, the DBA has no
"real" control over sorting and cache memory allocation. The memory allocation is
decided only globally in the server properties memory folder, and that applies for ALL
memory and not CACHING, SORTING, etc. b. All pages (blocks) are always 8k and all
extents are always 8 pages (64k). This means you have no way to specify larger extents
to ensure contiguous space for large objects. c. No range partioning of large tables and
indexes. In Oracle, a large 100 GB table can be seamlessly partitioned at the database
level into range partitions. For example, an invoice table can be partitioned into monthly
partitions. Such partitioned tables and partitioned indexes give performance and
maintenance benefits and are transparent to the application. d. There is no partitioning in
SQL Server. e. There are no bitmap indexes in SQL Server. f. There are no reverse key
indexes in SQL Server. g. There are no function-based indexes in SQL Server. h. There is
no star query optimization in SQL Server. Object types Here are some object types
missing in SQL Server that exist in Oracle. a. You cannot declare public or private
synonyms. b. There is no such thing as independent sequence objects. c. There are no
packages; i.e., collections of procedures and functions. d. No "before" event triggers
(only "after" event triggers) and no row triggers (only statement). e. No object types like
in PL/SQL. PL/SQL versus T-SQL a. In T-SQL there are significant extensions to the
ANSI SQL-92 standard which means converting applications to a different database later
will be a code challenge re-write. The INNER JOIN, LEFT OUTER, RIGHT OUTER
JOIN syntax differs from the classic JOIN. b. No Java database engine as in Oracle. c.
Stored procedures in SQL Server are not compiled until executed (which means
overhead, late binding and finding errors at execution time only!). d. No ability to
read/write from external files from a stored procedure. e. PL/SQL has many DBMS
system packages, where T-SQL relies only on a limited number of extended and system
stored procedures in the master database. f. PL/SQL is better in error exception handling,
and there is no such thing as exceptions in T-SQL (T-SQL uses @@error -- not elegant!).
g. T-SQL does not have the MINUS operator, that makes finding schema differences
more difficult in SQL Server. h. In SQL Server there is no "dead connection detection".
Clients who lose their connection may still hold locks until a DBA is notified to kill their
server side processes. i. In SQL Server there is no such thing as SQL*NET aliases/service
names! This means applications have to hard code the actual server name into their apps,
making it difficult to move databases later to load balance across servers. Clustering
technology In clustering technology, Oracle is light years ahead, since SQL Server has
nothing like Oracle Parallel Server/RAC -- two instances acting on the same data in
active-active configurations. And with the new version of Parallel Server in Oracle 9i,
renamed as the Oracle Real Application Clusters, there is diskless contention handling of
read-read, read-write, write-read, and write-write contention between the instances. This
diskless contention handling is called Cache Fusion, and it means for the first time, any
application can be placed in a cluster without any changes, and it scales upwards by just
adding another machine to the cluster. Microsoft has nothing like this. Reliability a. In
SQL Server Standard Edition there is no ability to mirror the transaction log files. In
Enterprise Edition there is a log shipping process that is not so reliable. b. If the logs fill
up the disk, the database will crash hard. c. Sometimes this requires the server itself to be
rebooted. Summary SQL Server is clearly positioned between Microsoft Access and
Oracle in terms of functionality, performance and scalability. It is a good workgroup-
level solution, a very quick time to market solution, and is very simple to use and
administer. Oracle is much more advanced and has more to offer for larger applications
with both OLTP and data warehouse applications. Its new clustering features are ideal for
Application Service Providers (ASPs) on the Internet, who can now start with a cluster of
two small servers and grow by just adding a server when they need to.

-- G.Subramani ([email protected]), July 30, 2003.

What always amazes me is how many Oracle folks say SQL Server does not have this
and that and our Oracle does all of this. Most of this is bullshit. The true is that many
things can be accomplished differently in different databases and environments and it
does not make sense to compare apples and oranges. Just to give you some ideas, when
they say SQL server does not read/write files they forget to say that SQL Server does
support extended stored procedures, using these procedures you can do file/write and
virtually anything else that you can do in Windows and beyond. When they say SQL
Server does not support Java, they forget to say that virtually nobody running SQL
Servers wants to have slow and ugly Java (defeating the relational database concept) in
their database and so on. This comparison is endless and has no real sense. Do not
compare apples and oranges just because all of them are called fruits.

-- Forget it ([email protected]), August 05, 2003.

yes i do agree with forget it as mentioned above. otherwise if there would have been such
a drastic differences showing one is mightier then the other would not have survived the
market share ...and sql server is still there ..;-)
geniemani

-- geniemani ([email protected]), September 05, 2003.

hi send me diffrances

-- ashish saxena ([email protected]), September 07, 2003.

Hi Forget it,

That was a nice analysis by subramani!. You are forgetting that he was only responding
to the question about differences between SQL server and Oracle but not trying (to sell
oracle and to demean SQL server). For example if you read any car buying guide, it will
list out what is there in one model car and what is not there compared to another model.
Some body might have a personal bias towards a particular vendor.

But remember that if we are not good with all the products(rdbms) , and stick to our
favourite one ---we will perish like an apple/orange in this market;).

-- murali ([email protected]), September 08, 2003.

For supporting a different point of view:

http://www.xefteri.com/articles/17mar2003/default.aspx

http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluation/compare/pricecomparison.asp

-- murali ([email protected]), September 08, 2003.

http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluation/compare/mythandreality.asp

-- murali ([email protected]), September 08, 2003.

I agree with Murali([email protected]).His answer is absolutely correct.I hope

Mr.Forget it will realize this

-- kvm ([email protected]), September 10, 2003.

Hello Friends, Can any one give me the difference b/w oracle 8i and 9i

Thanks

-- R ([email protected]), September 11, 2003.

1i

-- Kabir Islam ([email protected]), September 18, 2003.

Caching in Oracle in the lites of PCTs is much better and powerfull than in that of SQL
server.Also you can get the source code of Oracle!!

-- Amber R Marfatia ([email protected]), October 16, 2003.

unrelated

‫خليفه اول خليفۂ رسول هللا صلی ہللا عليہ وسلم بال فصل‬

-- ???? ???????Y???? ???????- ([email protected]), October 18, 2003.

Yes. Oracle is like apple and Sql Server is like Orange. For a Poor man Orange is better
and for a rich man apple is better.

-- Michael Manoj ([email protected]), November 21, 2003.

What about SQL Servers DTS capabilities? No one rating these? I favour SQL Server for
small quick business solutions on a budget, and Oracle for large scalable big budget
solutions.

-- oracsqlserve ([email protected]), December 22, 2003.

1. Oracle runs on many platforms, SQL on Windows only 2. Oracle includes IFS
(Internet File System), Java integration, SQL is more of a pure database 3. Oracle
requires client install and setup (Not difficult, but very UNIX-like for Windows users) 4.
SQL is #1 in Cost/Performance and overall Performance, although Oracle will refute that
5. Replication is much easier in SQL (I have been at clients where even the Oracle
consultant couldn't get it working w/oracle) 6. Fail over support in SQL is much, much
easier 7. JDBC support is much better in Oracle, although Microsoft is working on it 8.
ODBC support in both 9. SQL is ANSI-SQL '92 compliant, making it easier to convert to
another ANSI compliant database, theoretically anyway (truth is every database has
proprietary extensions). Oracle is generally more proprietary and their main goal is to
keep their customers locked-in. 10. SQL natively supports ODBC, OLEDB, XML, XML
Query, XML updates. Oracle natively supports proprietary connections, JDBC. Not sure
about XML support though. 11. SQL Server is much easier to administrate, with GUI and
command- line tools. Most of Oracle is command-line (Back in SQL 6.5 days I had a
customer who was so proud that after a day's worth of work he had managed to script his
database. I showed him how it was a 3 click operation in SQL ;-) 12. Oracle requires add-
ons for transaction monitors, fail over, etc. SQL has COM+, uses NT clustering and
generally has everything built-in 13. SQL Analysis Services is included (A very powerful
OLAP server). For Oracle it is a separate purchase. 14. Security is high in Oracle. And it
will work fine in any environments like UNIX, SOLARIES OR WINDOWS-NT. Where
as SQL SERVER performs more on WINDOWS-NT only. There are certain futures
which one will miss, if he uses SQL SERVER without Windiws-NT server. 15. Oracle
will be used especially in large database. But if we use sql server in such a environment,
the data processing will become very slower. Oracle database very closely supports Java
rather than Sql server.

-- lakshmi ([email protected]), December 24, 2003.

dfsdf

-- sdfd ([email protected]), January 19, 2004.

Thank you very much :) all of you .. becuase of this healthy discussion i have known few
facts relating to the differnece b/w then .. I think we should give credit to Subramani who
had very good points and did hard work to let us know things .. thankx alot you

Ali

-- Muhammad Ali ([email protected]), January 29, 2004.

Please any body can send me the differences cetween sqlserver and oracle.

-- Imran Khan ([email protected]), February 19, 2004.

A few "corrections" from a long-time SQL Server user... - Bitmap indexing is rarely ever
missed in SQL server, due to other indexing/optimizing techniques - Stored procedure
plans are indeed retained in a compiled state, it is blatantly false to say that they are
recompiled every time - Statistics are much easier to manage in SQL, but you can get far
more fine-grained control in Oracle - Generally speaking, SQL query optimizer is far far
more reliable in SQL; query hints are used rarely, if ever. That said, every database will
have at least some optimizer glitches, and it is up to the database developer to discover
and fix them (usually with hints) - Generally testing performance is easy in SQL, with
easily accessible query plans and statistics. These can be obtained from Oracle but are
much more challenging. Same for profile/trace of database activity. - Very generally
speaking, SQL uses far less memory and performs noticably better out of the box than
Oracle. But because of Oracle's fine-tuning capabilities, a *skilled* DBA can get better
performance out of Oracle. - SQL can indeed do range partitioning, but it must be done
manually (where I think for example DB2 can do it automatically by hash) - see
"partitioned views"

Helpful wins for Oracle: - runs on *nix (for many, this ends the debate immediately) -
exception handling in pl/sql dialect - functon based indexes are occasionally very useful -
but hard to rely upon (must write queries to exactly match the function usage) - can be
heavily tuned for specific use cases; you rarely hit a dead-end optimizing oracle (if you
have a very very skilled dba) - readers never block - standalone sequences are sometimes
more useful than SQL IDENTITY - oracle supports more efficient constructs for fetching
resultant data values during insert/update operations, and for advanced bulk operations

Helpful wins for SQL: - runs great out of the box - free excellent management, profiling,
monitoring tools - excellent query optimizer - rarely needs any tuning at all (but when
you do, the options are few; wysiwyg) - included top-notch OLAP tool and full-text
search; competitive with much more expensive solutions - much less memory and
compute intensive (probably due to cheaper concurrency model and lighter configuration
options!) - SQL also caches query plans of recent statements in an LRU cache -
frequently used statements do not need recompiles, even without procedures

Big difference: very different concurrency model between SQL and Oracle. Oracle
operates against point-in-time(log) snapshots of the data (using SCNs), but acquires those
on demand. Therefore readers never block. In SQL, you have more choices of
isolation/concurrency, but the more aggressive settings will have writers block readers,
and the most aggressive can have readers block writers. In classic RDBMS this is not too
bad - but in complex deep relations such as OORDBMS-over-RDBMS or other object-
graph storage solutions, deadlocks can really hurt your project unless you can scale some
queries back to Read Committed isolation level.

-- David Goldstein ([email protected]), March 15, 2004.

Oh yes!!! One more thing:

Oracle will not index null values (for compound indexes, that means all values null
produces no entry).
SQL will index all rows.
On Oracle this can be an advantage for large tables where columns are often null but you
want to find the non-null values quickly; but is a terrible disadvantage if you need to find
null values (it produces a table scan).
On SQL sometimes you wish you could ignore nulls (but I believe they dropped that
option long ago); but you almost never get surprised by those nasty table scans.

-- David Goldstein ([email protected]), March 15, 2004.

1.Oracle is platform independent 2.Oracle has in built jvm we can include java classes
into it. 3.Sql server has better gui than oracle 4.Sql server has better perfomance in
backups,replication,recovery 5.There is no synonym database object in sql server,no
package no row trigger,no before trigger. 6.oracle has better querry processing 7. oracle
has better internet computing 8.sql server is easy to use with ms platforms 9.oracle has
more powerfull pl/sql 10.oracle is better for large database.
-- Gagan jaiswal ([email protected]), March 31, 2004.

bhen ke loudo saaleyo padh nahi sakte apne aap aur yaha aake answer maangte ho.... aur
madarchodo search karna bhi nahi aata tumhe... bhosdi walo kehne ko comp. engg. kar
rahe par searching nahi aati.. jab kaam karne lagoge waha pe bhi kya gaand marwaoge
kya ... aisi hi sites pe jaake plz plz karke answer mangoge......tumhari maa bhen di ta
mai... Gaand marao saalo

-- Tiger ([email protected]), April 05, 2004.

Are yar tiger ... kya tune e londo ko bahut galiya diya. Are thoda shikhade ne yar.. Apne
desh ka nam roshan karenge.

-- Sanjay ([email protected]), April 14, 2004.

The following article compares Oracle versus Microsoft SQL Server 2000. It highlights
most of the SQL Server technical limitations, and in the same time gives the
corresponding Oracle solutions to these limitations.

The article could be helpful, to anyone trying to make comparison or evaluation to any of
the both products.

To read the complete story, click on the Read more ... link.

The article was written by Faulkner, Kent - USA and updated by Havewala, Porus -
Australia.

1. SINGLE PLATFORM DEPENDANCY

SQL Server is only operable on the Windows platform, and this is a major limitation for
it to be an enterprise solution. Oracle is available on multiple platforms such as Windows,
all flavors of Unix from vendors such as IBM, Sun, Digital, HP, Sequent, etc. and VAX-
VMS as well as MVS. The multi-platform nature of Oracle makes it a true enterprise
solution.

2. LOCKING / CONCURRENCY

SQL Server has no multi-version consistency model which means that "writers block
readers and readers block writers" to ensure data integrity. In contrast, with Oracle the
rule is "readers don?t block writers and writers don?t block readers". This is possible
without compromising data integrity because Oracle will dynamically re-create a read-
consistent image for a reader of any requested data that has been changed but not yet
committed.
In other words, the reader will see the data as it was before the writer began changing it
(until the writer commits). SQL Server's locking scheme is much simpler (less mature)
and will result in a lot ff delays/waits in a heavy OLTP environment.

Also, SQL Server will escalate row locks to page level locks when too many rows on a
page are locked. This locks rows which are uninvolved in any updates for no good
reason.

3. POTENTIAL OF LONG UNCOMMITED TRANSACTIONS HALTING

DATABASE ACTIVITY

In SQL Server 2000, a long uncommitted transaction can stop other transactions which
queue behind it in the single transaction log, and this can stop all activity on the database,
whereas in Oracle, if there is a long uncommitted transaction, only the transaction itself
will stop when it runs out of rollback space, because of the use of different rollback
segments for transactions.

Oracle allocates transactions randomly to any of its multiple rollback segments and areas
inside that rollback segment. When the transaction is committed, that space is released
for other transactions, however Sql server allocates transactions sequentially to its single
transaction log, the space occupied by committed transactions is not released to new
transactions until the recycling of the transaction log is complete (in a circular round-
robin manner).

This means if there is an uncommitted transaction in the middle, and the transaction log
cannot grow by increasing the file size, no new transactions will be allowed. This is the
potential of a single uncommitted transaction to halt database activity.

4. PERFORMANCE and TUNING

a. No control of sorting (memory allocation) in SQL Server. Oracle can fully control the
sort area size and allows it to be set by the DBA.

b. No control over SQL Caching (memory allocation) in SQL Server. This is controllable
in Oracle.

c. No control over storage/space management to prevent fragmentation in SQL Server.

All pages (blocks) are always 8k and all extents are always 8 pages (64k). This means
you have no way to specify larger extents to ensure contiguous space for large objects. In
Oracle, this is fully configurable.

d. No range partioning of large tables and indexes in SQL Server, whereas in Oracle a
large table (eg. 100 GB or more) can be seamlessly partitioned at the database level into
range partitions, for eg. an invoice table can be partitioned into monthly partitions.
Such partitioned tables and partitioned indexes give performance and maintenance
benefits and are transparent to the application.

e. No Log miner facility in SQL Server. Oracle 8i and 9i supply a Log Miner which
enables inspection of archived redo logs. This comes free with the database. But in the
case of SQL Server, external products from other companies have to be purchased to do
this important DBA task.

f. A SQL Server DBA claimed that fully qualifying the name of an object in SQL Server
code would lead to performance gains of 7% to 10%. There are no dictionary
performance problems like that in Oracle. Oracle would have some gains if it fully
qualified all names - say 0.01 percent.

This actually shows the difference in the internal database technology between Oracle
and Microsoft and implies that the technology of resolving object names via the
dictionary is more advanced in the case of Oracle, ie. Oracle seems to better access its
internal dictionary and resolve names, unlike SQL server.

5. MISSING OBJECT TYPES IN SQL SERVER

a. No public or private synonyms b. No independent sequences c. No packages ie.

collection of procedures and functions.

6. PROGRAMMING

a. Significant extensions to the ANSI SQL-92 standard in SQL Server, which means
converting applications to a different database later will be a challenge (code re-write).

b. Sql Server has no inbuilt JAVA database engine as in Oracle. In Oracle, Java classes
can be loaded and executed in the database itself, thus adding the database's security and
scalability to Java applications.

c. In SQL Server, stored Procedures are not compiled until executed (overhead). In
Oracle, packages and procs/functions are compiled before execution.

In Oracle 9i it is also possible to translate Pl/Sql into C code and then compile/link the
code, which gives very good performance gains for numeric intensive operations. SQL
Server has no such ability.

d. In SQL server, there is no ability to read/write from external files from a stored
procedure. Oracle has this ability.

e. SQL Server uses cryptic commands for database administration like:

exec sp_addrolemember N'db_datareader', N'davidb' go

This is to add the user davidb to the role db_datareader.

On the other hand, Oracle uses standard English-like SQL commands to do the same:

grant db_datareader to davidb;

This one statement does all, in simple English, what the cryptic SQL Server command
does.

f. Oracle SQL and PL/SQL syntax is more powerful and can do things more intuitively
than Microsoft Transact-SQL. Try to sum up a column by each month, and show the
totals for the month, in SQL Server you do it in T-SQL by grouping on strings, in Oracle
it is possible to do this grouping by the trunc(,'month') function. This method in Oracle is
more intuitive, it understands the dates, the method in SQL Server does not.

g. In SQL Server, you cannot issue a "create or replace" for either procedures or views, in
Oracle you can. This one facility simplifies code writing, since in Sql Server the
procedure or view must be dropped first if present and then recreated ie. two commands,
in Oracle there is no need - a single command "create or replace" is enough.

h. In Oracle, a procedure/function/package/view is marked as invalid if a dependant

object changes. In SQL Server there is no concept of an invalid procedure, it will run but
give unexpected results. The former is more suitable for change control and preventing
unexpected errors.

i. A recompile reuses the code that is in the Oracle database, the actual command is "alter
procedure compile". This is applicable to procedures/functions/packages/views. This
concept of recompiling is not there in SQL Server where you have to resubmit the whole
code if you want to recompile a procedure.

j. Triggers in Oracle do not allow transactional control ie. commit/rollback/savepoint

statements. Whereas, triggers in SQL Server allow commits/rollbacks, which is
potentially dangerous and can cause problems with transactions which fire the trigger.

Triggers in SQL Server also can start transactions of their own which is not very good
and shows lack of maturity of the language.

7. STANDBY DIFFERENCES

SQL Server and Oracle have differences regarding standby databases. A standby is a
database set up on a second server and to which logs are applied ie. all database changes,
so that the standby can be activated and used in the case of a failover.

a. In the case of Sql server, when there is a failover, the "master" and "msdb" databases
have to be restored from backup or copied over from the primary to the standby and then
the standby is activated after all logs are applied. In Oracle, there is no need for a restore
to be done, the standby can be activated at any time after all logs are applied.

This difference exists because of the fact that in SQL server, new users/roles added to the
primary are not carried over to the standby (these users/roles go in the master/msdb) and
backups have to be done continuously of the master and msdb, these backups are then
restored when the time comes for a failover.

In the case of Oracle, users/roles when created in the primary are automatically carried
over to the standby. So when the failover time arrives, all that is needed is to activate the
standby.

b. In the case of Sql Server, if the standby is opened as read only, to switch it back to
standby again, a restore from backup has to be done. In the case of Oracle, from 8i
version onwards, if a standby database is opened as read only, it can be reopened as a
standby without restoring from backup.

c. The time delay to apply logs between the primary and the standby can be varied, but it
can never be 0 minutes in the case of SQL Server.

In the case of Oracle, in 9i it is possible to have logs applied simultaneously to the

primary as well as standby, using Net8 protocol. This means zero data loss in the case of
a failover whereas SQL Server's log shipping cannot avoid data loss d during the time
gap.

d. SQL Server's log shipping mechanism also happens at the OS level, whereas Oracle's
mechanism can take place directly at the Net8 level where logs are automatically applied
to standbys without any scripts or OS batch files, this mechanism in Oracle is called
managed standby.

e.One deficiency of Oracle in the standby was that datafiles, if created on the primary,
had to be manually created on the standby whereas SQL Server does this automatically.
However, in 9i, this deficiency is fixed and data files are created automatically at the
standby.

f. Another deficiency of Oracle in the standby is that direct loads, if using the
unrecoverable facility to bypass redo logging, require the data files of the primary
database to be manually copied across to the standby. This is not fixed in 9i. SQL
Server's version of log shipping and direct loads do not require this copying across.

8. CLUSTER TECHNOLOGY

In clustering technology, in the case of SQL Server, two nodes cannot work on the same
database, they "share nothing". At the best, to utilize the power of both nodes, the
application must be manually spit up and redistributed between the hosts, working on
different sets of data, and it is not possible to seamlessly scale upwards by adding another
node to the cluster in the case of SQL Server.

Most cluster configurations in Sql Server use the power of only one node, leaving the
other node to take over only if there is a problem with the first node.

In the case of Oracle Parallel server, it is possible to have two or more instances of the
database on different nodes acting on the SAME data in active-active configurations.
Lock management is handled by the Oracle Parallel server. With the new version of
Parallel Server in Oracle 9i, renamed as the Oracle real application cluster (9i RAC),
there is diskless contention handling of read-read, read- write, write-read, and write-write
contention between the instances.

This diskless contention handling is called Cache Fusion and it means for the first time,
any application can be placed in a cluster without any changes, and it scales upwards by
just adding another machine to the cluster.

Microsoft has nothing like this clustering technology of Oracle, which can best be
described as "light years ahead".

9. REPLICATION DIFFERENCES

In Microsoft SQL Server's version of simple replication ie, publisher-subscriber using

transactional replication, even if only one table is being replicated, the entire transaction
log is checked by the log reader agent and transactional changes applied to the
subscribers.

In Oracle's simple replication, changes to a single table are stored in a snapshot log and
copied across, there is no need to check all the archive logs.

10. SECURITY

As of 2002, Oracle has 14 independent security evaluations; Microsoft SQL Server has
only one.

11. INFORMATION POOL

SQL Server and Internet articles of the magazine are only available with paid
subscription. Whereas, Oracle has given its magazine free for many years, all articles are
free on the internet, and the Oracle Technical network (OTN) is also free on the internet.

12. USABILITY

Some people say Microsoft SQL Server tools, like Enterprise manager, are easy to use.
Oracle Enterprise Manager is a huge tool and seems daunting to inexperienced people.
This is true to an extent, however ease of use cannot be compared with the many features
in Oracle, and its industrial-level strength, and its many technical advantages.

13. TCP Benchmarks

March 2002 Benchmarks from TPC.org show that Oracle 9i is seen in the majority of top
benchmarks in "non-clustered" TPC-C for performance (OLTP), whereas SQL Server is
seen in the majority of entries for "clustered" TPC-C for performance (OLTP).

This gives the strange impression that SQL server is faster in a cluster than in a non-
cluster, which is misleading. The fact is that this result is due to the use of "federated
databases" in clusters by Microsoft in which pieces of the application are broken up and
placed on separate active-active servers, each working on separate pieces of the
application.

While excellent for theoretical benchmarks, this is not a practical approach in the real life
IT world because it requires massive changes to any application, and also ongoing
changes to the application when new servers are added to the cluster (each server has a
view that sees the data in the other servers, adding a new server would mean rewriting the
views for all tables on all servers) and would be rejected by any practical headed
manager.

Using this impractical approach of federated databases in clusters, the impression is that
Sql-server leads in clustered performance, but the practical reality is otherwise. This is
seen in the way SQL Server is not to be seen in the non-clustered benchmarks.

Also, Oracle leads the way for Tpc benchmarks for Decision Support Systems with 1,000
Gb and 3,000 Gb sizes (TPC-H by performance per scale), whereas SQL Server is only
seen to a small extent in the 300GB range.

14. XML Support

To provide a more native support for XML, the first release of Oracle9i Database
introduced the XMLType datatype and associated XML specific behavior. In addition,
built in XML generation and aggregation operators greatly increase the throughput of
XML processing.

With the second release of Oracle9i, Oracle significantly adds to XML support in the
database server. This fully absorbs the W3C XML data model into the Oracle database,
and provides new standard access methods for navigating and querying XML - creating a
native integrated XML database within the Oracle RDBMS.

The key XDB technologies can be grouped into two major classes - XMLType that
provides a native XML storage and retrieval capability strongly integrated with SQL, and
an XML Repository that provides foldering, access control, versioning etc. for XML
resources. The integration of a native XML capability within the database brings a
number of benefits.

In summation, Oracle9i Release 2's XDB functionality is a high- performance XML

storage and retrieval technology available with the Oracle9i Release 2 database. It fully
absorbs the W3C XML data model into the Oracle Database, and provides new standard
access methods for navigating and querying XML. With XDB, you get all the advantages
of relational database technology and XML technology at the same time.

In contrast to this, Microsoft SQL Server 2000 only has limited ways to read and write
xml from its tables.

SUMMARY

SQL Server is clearly positioned between MS-ACCESS and ORACLE in terms of

functionality, performance, and scalability. It makes a work group level solution (small
number of users with small amount of data), perhaps at the departmental level.

Oracle is much more advanced and has more to offer for larger applications with both
OLTP and Data Warehouse applications. Its new clustering features are ideal for
Application Service Providers (ASPs) on the Internet who can now start with a cluster of
2 small servers and grow by just adding a server when they need to. Besides, Oracle's
multi-platform capability makes it the most convincing argument for an enterprise.

Related links ? More about Oracle Tips & Ideas ? News by Administrator

--------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------

Most read story in Oracle Tips & Ideas: 127 Oracle DBA job interview questions

Oracle versus Microsoft SQL Server 2000 comparission | Login/Create an account | 2

Comments Threshold -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 No comments Nested Flat Thread Oldest first Newest
first Highest scores first Comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for
their content.

Re: Oracle versus Microsoft SQL Server 2000 comparission (Score: 0) by Anonymous on
Feb 18, 2003 - 10:15 AM I am a Project Manager who has worked on both SQLserver
and Oracle projects in internet and standard LAN environments. My opinion is based on
user perceptions of the databases and may have no justification technically, but they are
what people are saying.

Most users don't care what the database is. Often they will be a MS or Oracle shop and
that's that, you wont change them. So usually there is no choice or even comparison of
technologies, it's just "we have an Oracle licence, use it" and that's it. There is more to
speed than the database.
The raw grunt of the database is rarely a problem. You are far more likely to find speed
issues that come from poor database design, crappy data models, slow networks, poor
application architecture or just plain bad software design than from the actual speed of
the database. When you get to the really high end, sure it matters, but the time and effort
spent changing from RDBMS to the other to get extra speed (if there is any, and marginal
at best) could be better spent on a gruntier box, you'll need one next year anyway.

Once an MS shop, always an MS shop. MS has the "integration" of its products down
pat. If you implement an MS solution from end-to-end, likely you will never get out.
Their products are so dependent upon each other that to replace one component is just too
hard. You can build similar implementations in Oracle by embedding logic in the
database, but you don't have to.

Oracle is far more OPEN to different clients and platforms. If you want an SQLserver
system to run at optimal performance, it's MS end- to-end.

Robert Green Software Developer, Consulting/Systems Integrator

Re: Oracle versus Microsoft SQL Server 2000 comparission (Score: 0) by Anonymous on
Feb 19, 2003 - 10:23 AM SQL Server is a joke

With all the hype, MSFT still can't keep locks from escalating and DB reads clean. Until
MSFT, SYBS, and IBM do so they will not be taken seriously in the high OLTP world
demanded by the web.

Check the stats, 10 of the top 10 web sites in the world use Oracle. As far as the TPC
benchmarks are concerned, IBM and MSFT are using smoke and mirrors. It took
TWELVE separate databases to be only twice as fast as ONE Oracle database.

Oracle has been able to use federations of databases (used by MSFT and IBM) for
benchmarks for five years. Oracle could beat IBM numbers 10 times over using a
federation, but won't because any real DBA would never consider using this useless
configuration in a real situation. Shared disk is the cluster configuration of every major
system on the web, MSFT, IBM and everybody else can't yet do it so they use Shared
nothing, which is good for just that, NOTHING. If you buy into the hype, be sure to keep
your receipt! by vikram lashkari

-- Vikram Lashkari ([email protected]), April 20, 2004.

Thank you all for these great answers, I have been looking for a succinct precis like this
for a while, you have saved me much wading through sales material.

-- Martin Lang ([email protected]), April 22, 2004.

I have a very specific comparison between both the DB. If u need to update multiple
column with the condition in Oracle it is possible but same thing is not possible at SQL
server.

Ex: update emp set (empname,sal)=( select empname,sal from emp where
empcode=10000)

-- Arun Kumar ([email protected]), April 26, 2004.

in both you have procedural langage but:

a) oracle , you can catch exception where you want, even a the end of procedure and then
trapping all cases.

b) sql2000, yu need to write your own code AFTER EACH statement, heavy,
heavy,heavy.

-- bruno delaunay ([email protected]), May 31, 2004.

Oracle is best perfomance rather than SQL Server...

-- Alim ([email protected]), June 04, 2004.

this is some good stuff. i learnt a lot ,thanx.

-- xyzstarr ([email protected]), July 02, 2004.

SQL Server 2000 only works on Windows-based platforms, including Windows 9x,
Windows NT, Windows 2000 and Windows CE. In comparison with SQL Server 2000,
Oracle 9i Database supports all known platforms, including Windows-based platforms,
AIX-Based Systems, Compaq Tru64 UNIX, HP 9000 Series HP-UX, Linux Intel, Sun
Solaris and so on.

It is very difficult to make the performance comparison between SQL Server 2000 and
Oracle 9i Database. The performance of your databases depends rather from the
experience of the database developers and database administrator than from the
database's provider. You can use both of these RDBMS to build stable and efficient
system. However, it is possible to define the typical transactions, which used in inventory
control systems, airline reservation systems and banking systems. After defining these
typical transactions, it is possible to run them under the different database management
systems working on the different hardware and software platforms. Both SQL Server
2000 and Oracle 9i Database support the ANSI SQL-92 entry level and do not support
the ANSI SQL-92 intermediate level. In the Features comparison section of this article I
want to make the brief comparison of the Transact-SQL with PL/SQL and show some
SQL Server 2000 and Oracle 9i Database limits.

SQL Server 2000 vs Oracle 9i Alexander Chigrik [email protected]

--------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------

Introduction Platform comparison Hardware requirements Software requirements

Performance comparison TPC tests Price comparison Features comparison T-SQL vs
PL/SQL SQL Server 2000 and Oracle 9i limits Conclusion Literature

--------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------

Introduction Often people in newsgroups ask about some comparison of Oracle and
Microsoft SQL Server. In this article, I compare SQL Server 2000 with Oracle 9i
Database regarding price, performance, platforms supported, SQL dialects and products
limits.

Platform comparison SQL Server 2000 only works on Windows-based platforms,

including Windows 9x, Windows NT, Windows 2000 and Windows CE. In comparison
with SQL Server 2000, Oracle 9i Database supports all known platforms, including
Windows-based platforms, AIX-Based Systems, Compaq Tru64 UNIX, HP 9000 Series
HP-UX, Linux Intel, Sun Solaris and so on.

Hardware requirements To install SQL Server 2000, you should have the Intel or
compatible platforms and the following hardware:

Hardware Requirements Processor Pentium 166 MHz or higher Memory 32 MB RAM

(minimum for Desktop Engine), 64 MB RAM (minimum for all other editions), 128 MB
RAM or more recommended Hard disk space 270 MB (full installation), 250 MB
(typical), 95 MB (minimum), Desktop Engine: 44 MB Analysis Services: 50 MB
minimum and 130 MB typical English Query: 80 MB

Oracle 9i supports Intel or compatible platforms, AIX-Based Systems, Compaq Tru64

UNIX, HP 9000 Series HP-UX, Linux Intel, Sun Solaris and so on.

To install Oracle 9i under the Intel or compatible platforms, you should have the
following hardware:

Hardware Requirements Processor Pentium 166 MHz or higher Memory RAM: 128 MB
(256 MB recommended) Virtual Memory: Initial Size 200 MB, Maximum Size 400 MB
Hard disk space 140 MB on the System Drive plus 4.5 GB for the Oracle Home Drive
(FAT) or 2.8 GB for the Oracle Home Drive (NTFS)
To install Oracle 9i Database under the UNIX Systems, such as AIX- Based Systems,
Compaq Tru64 UNIX, HP 9000 Series HP-UX, and Sun Solaris, you should have the
following hardware:

Hardware Requirements Memory A minimum of 512 MB RAM Swap Space A minimum

of 2 x RAM or 400 MB, whichever is greater Hard disk space 4.5 GB

Software requirements SQL Server 2000 comes in six editions: Enterprise, Standard,
Personal, Developer, Desktop Engine, and SQL Server CE (a compatible version for
Windows CE) and requires the following software:

Operating System Enterprise Edition Standard Edition Personal Edition Developer

Edition Desktop Engine SQL Server CE Windows CE No No No No No Yes Windows
9x No No Yes No Yes No Windows NT 4.0 Workstation with Service Pack 5 No No Yes
Yes Yes No Windows NT 4.0 Server with Service Pack 5 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Windows NT 4.0 Server Enterprise Edition with Service Pack 5 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
No Windows 2000 Professional No No Yes Yes Yes No Windows 2000 Server Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes No Windows 2000 Advanced Server Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Windows
2000 DataCenter Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Windows XP Professional No No Yes Yes
Yes No

Oracle 9i Database comes in three editions: Enterprise, Standard and Personal and
requires the following software:

Platform Operating System Version Required Patches Windows-based Windows NT 4.0

Service Pack 5 Windows-based Windows 2000 Service Pack 1 Windows-based Windows
XP Not Necessary AIX-Based AIX 4.3.3 Maintenance Level 09 and IY24568, IY25282,
IY27614, IY30151 AIX-Based AIX 5.1 AIX 5L release 5.1 ML01+ (IY22854), IY26778,
IY28766, IY28949, IY29965, IY30150 Compaq Tru64 UNIX Tru64 5.1 5.1 patchkit 4
Compaq Tru64 UNIX Tru64 5.1A 5.1A patchkit 1 HP-UX HP-UX version 11.0 (64-bit)
Sept. 2001 Quality Pack, PHCO_23792, PHCO_24148, PHKL_24268, PHKL_24729,
PHKL_ 25475, PHKL_25525, PHNE_24715, PHSS_23670, PHSS_24301,
PHSS_24303, PHSS_24627, PHSS_22868 Linux SuSE Linux Enterprise Server 7 (or
SLES-7) with kernel 2.4.7, and glibc 2.2.2 Not Necessary Sun Solaris Solaris 32-Bit 2.6
(5.6), 7 (5.7) or 8 (5.8) Not Necessary Sun Solaris Solaris 64-Bit 8 (5.8) Update 5

Performance comparison It is very difficult to make the performance comparison

between SQL Server 2000 and Oracle 9i Database. The performance of your databases
depends rather from the experience of the database developers and database administrator
than from the database's provider. You can use both of these RDBMS to build stable and
efficient system. However, it is possible to define the typical transactions, which used in
inventory control systems, airline reservation systems and banking systems. After
defining these typical transactions, it is possible to run them under the different database
management systems working on the different hardware and software platforms.
TPC tests The Transaction Processing Performance Council (TPC.Org) is independent
organization that specifies the typical transactions (transactions used in inventory control
systems, airline reservation systems and banking systems) and some general rules these
transactions should satisfy.

The TPC produces benchmarks that measure transaction processing and database
performance in terms of how many transactions a given system and database can perform
per unit of time, e.g., transactions per second or transactions per minute.

The TPC organization made the specification for many tests. There are TPC-C, TPC-H,
TPC-R, TPC-W and some old tests, such as TPC-A, TPC-B and TPC-D. The most
popular test is the TPC-C test (OLTP test).

At the moment the article was wrote, SQL Server 2000 held the top TPC-C by
performance results with Distributed Partitioned Views- based cluster systems. See Top
Ten TPC-C by Performance Version 5 Results

At the moment the article was wrote, SQL Server 2000 held the top TPC-C by
price/performance results. See Top Ten TPC-C by Price/Performance Version 5 Results

Note. Because most organizations really do not run very large databases, so the key
points on which SQL Server 2000 won the TPC-C benchmarks do not really matter to the
vast majority of companies.

Price comparison One of the main Microsoft SQL Server 2000 advantage in comparison
with Oracle 9i Database is that SQL Server is cheaper. Other SQL Server advantage is
that Microsoft includes the Online analytical processing (OLAP) and Data Mining as
standard features in SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition. So, you can save up to four
times with SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition if you use OLAP and Data Mining.

The price comparisons below were based on the Oracle and SQL Server 2000 Price
Comparison article from Microsoft.

Compare pricing for SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition and Oracle9i Standard Edition:

Number of CPUs Oracle9i Standard Edition SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition 1
$15,000 $4,999 2 $30,000 $9,998 4 $60,000 $19,996 8 $120,000 $39,992 16 $240,000
$79,984 32 $480,000 $159,968

Compare pricing for SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition (which include OLAP and Data
Mining) and Oracle9i Enterprise Edition with OLAP and/or Data Mining:

Number of CPUs Oracle9i Enterprise Edition Oracle9i Enterprise Edition with OLAP or
Data Mining Oracle9i Enterprise Edition With OLAP and Data Mining SQL Server 2000
Enterprise Edition 1 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $19,999 2 $80,000 $120,000 $160,000
$39,998 4 $160,000 $240,000 $320,000 $79,996 8 $320,000 $480,000 $640,000
$159,992 16 $640,000 $960,000 $1,280,000 $319,984 32 $1,280,000 $1,920,000
$2,560,000 $639,968

Note. This is not a full price comparison between SQL Server 2000 and Oracle 9i
Database. It is only a brief comparison. You can have any discounts and the prices can be
increased or decreased in the future. See Microsoft and Oracle to get more information
about the price of their products.

Features comparison Both SQL Server 2000 and Oracle 9i Database support the ANSI
SQL-92 entry level and do not support the ANSI SQL-92 intermediate level. In the
Features comparison section of this article I want to make the brief comparison of the
Transact-SQL with PL/SQL and show some SQL Server 2000 and Oracle 9i Database
limits.

T-SQL vs PL/SQL The dialect of SQL supported by Microsoft SQL Server 2000 is called
Transact-SQL (T-SQL). The dialect of SQL supported by Oracle 9i Database is called
PL/SQL. PL/SQL is more powerful language than T- SQL

-- Narayana Reddy P ([email protected]), July 03, 2004.

Difference between Oracle and SQL 2000

Introduction In this article, I compare SQL Server 2000 with Oracle 9i Database
regarding price, performance, platforms supported, SQL dialects and products limits.

Platform comparison SQL Server 2000 only works on Windows-based platforms,

including Windows 9x, Windows NT, Windows 2000 and Windows CE. In comparison
with SQL Server 2000, Oracle 9i Database supports all known platforms, including
Windows-based platforms, AIX-Based Systems, Compaq Tru64 UNIX, HP 9000 Series
HP-UX, Linux Intel, Sun Solaris and so on.

Hardware requirements To install SQL Server 2000, you should have the Intel or
compatible platforms and the following hardware: Hardware Requirements Processor
Pentium 166 MHz or higher Memory 32 MB RAM (minimum for Desktop Engine),64
MB RAM (minimum for all other editions),128 MB RAM or more recommended Hard
disk space 270 MB (full installation),250 MB (typical),95 MB (minimum),Desktop
Engine: 44 MBAnalysis Services: 50 MB minimum and 130 MB typicalEnglish Query:
80 MB

Oracle 9i supports Intel or compatible platforms, AIX-Based Systems, Compaq Tru64

UNIX, HP 9000 Series HP-UX, Linux Intel, Sun Solaris and so on.

To install Oracle 9i under the Intel or compatible platforms, you should have the
following hardware: Hardware Requirements Processor Pentium 166 MHz or higher
Memory RAM: 128 MB (256 MB recommended)Virtual Memory: Initial Size 200 MB,
Maximum Size 400 MB Hard disk space 140 MB on the System Driveplus 4.5 GB for
the Oracle Home Drive (FAT)or 2.8 GB for the Oracle Home Drive (NTFS)

To install Oracle 9i Database under the UNIX Systems, such as AIX- Based Systems,
Compaq Tru64 UNIX, HP 9000 Series HP-UX, and Sun Solaris, you should have the
following hardware: Hardware Requirements Memory A minimum of 512 MB RAM
Swap Space A minimum of 2 x RAM or 400 MB, whichever is greater Hard disk space
4.5 GB

Software requirements SQL Server 2000 comes in six editions: Enterprise, Standard,
Personal, Developer, Desktop Engine, and SQL Server CE (a compatible version for
Windows CE) and requires the following software:

Operating Enterprise Standard Personal Developer Desktop SQL Server System Edition
Edition Edition Edition Engine CE Windows CE No No No No No Yes

Windows 9x No No Yes No Yes No

Windows NT 4.0 Workstation with Service Pack 5 No No Yes Yes Yes No

Windows NT 4.0 Server with Service Pack 5 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Windows NT 4.0 Server Enterprise Edition with Service Pack 5 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
No

Windows 2000 Professional No No Yes Yes Yes No Windows 2000 Server Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes No Windows 2000 Advanced Server Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Windows 2000
DataCenter Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Windows XP Professional No No Yes Yes Yes No

Performance comparison It is very difficult to make the performance comparison

between SQL Server 2000 and Oracle 9i Database. The performance of your databases
depends rather from the experience of the database developers and database administrator
than from the database's provider. You can use both of these RDBMS to build stable and
efficient system. However, it is possible to define the typical transactions, which used in
inventory control systems, airline reservation systems and banking systems. After
defining these typical transactions, it is possible to run them under the different database
management systems working on the different hardware and software platforms.

TPC tests The Transaction Processing Performance Council (TPC.Org) is independent

organization that specifies the typical transactions (transactions used in inventory control
systems, airline reservation systems and banking systems) and some general rules these
transactions should satisfy.

The TPC produces benchmarks that measure transaction processing and database
performance in terms of how many transactions a given system and database can perform
per unit of time, e.g., transactions per second or transactions per minute.
The TPC organization made the specification for many tests. There are TPC-C, TPC-H,
TPC-R, TPC-W and some old tests, such as TPC-A, TPC-B and TPC-D. The most
popular test is the TPC-C test (OLTP test).

At the moment the article was wrote, SQL Server 2000 held the top TPC- C by
performance results with Distributed Partitioned Views-based cluster systems. See Top
Ten TPC-C by Performance Version 5 Results

At the moment the article was wrote, SQL Server 2000 held the top TPC- C by
price/performance results. See Top Ten TPC-C by Price/Performance Version 5 Results

Note. Because most organizations really do not run very large databases, so the key
points on which SQL Server 2000 won the TPC-C benchmarks do not really matter to the
vast majority of companies. Price comparison One of the main Microsoft SQL Server
2000 advantage in comparison with Oracle 9i Database is that SQL Server is cheaper.
Other SQL Server advantage is that Microsoft includes the Online analytical processing
(OLAP) and Data Mining as standard features in SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition.
So, you can save up to four times with SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition if you use
OLAP and Data Mining.

The price comparisons below were based on the Oracle and SQL Server 2000 Price
Comparison article from Microsoft. Compare pricing for SQL Server 2000 Standard
Edition and Oracle9i Standard Edition: Number of CPUs Oracle9i Standard Edition SQL
Server 2000 Standard Edition 1 $15,000 $4,999 2 $30,000 $9,998 4 $60,000 $19,996 8
$120,000 $39,992 16 $240,000 $79,984 32 $480,000 $159,968

Features comparison Both SQL Server 2000 and Oracle 9i Database support the ANSI
SQL-92 entry level and do not support the ANSI SQL-92 intermediate level. In the
Features comparison section of this article I want to make the brief comparison of the
Transact-SQL with PL/SQL and show some SQL Server 2000 and Oracle 9i Database
limits.

Conclusion It is not true that SQL Server 2000 is better than Oracle 9i or vice versa. Both
products can be used to build stable and efficient system and the stability and
effectiveness of your applications and databases depend rather from the experience of the
database developers and database administrator than from the database's provider. But
SQL Server 2000 has some advantages in comparison with Oracle 9i and vice versa.

The SQL Server 2000 advantages: ? SQL Server 2000 is cheaper to buy than Oracle 9i
Database. ? SQL Server 2000 holds the top TPC-C performance and price/performance
results. ? SQL Server 2000 is generally accepted as easier to install, use and manage. The
Oracle 9i Database advantages: ? Oracle 9i Database supports all known platforms, not
only the Windows-based platforms. ? PL/SQL is more powerful language than T-SQL. ?
More fine-tuning to the configuration can be done via start- up parameters.
-- Veena ([email protected]), August 11, 2004.

tell me difference between oracle 8i and sql server 2000

-- ranjan ([email protected]), August 12, 2004.

Thanx for the discussion, if u find the better one mail to me [email protected]

-- shankar ([email protected]), September 17, 2004.

thanks for ur valuable information and pl continue the same

-- viswanadh kiran ([email protected]), October 18, 2004.

All are bullsit man. No oracle is good no SQL server is good. Only DB2 is good man.
SQL 2005 is best.But still oracle is better than best

SmitP

-- Smriti Panta ([email protected]), February 11, 2005.