Sql Server Vs Oracle

[pascal01]

Hi, Can anyone advise where I could find a document or checklist that describes the differences between SQL server and Oracle? I cannot find in any Oracle websites.

[sreddy]

Try google.com OR searchdatabase.com
http://searchdatabase.techtarget.com...288372,00.html

[KenEwald]

You won't get a decent comparison on either Oracle.com or Microsoft.com ... I'd put money on that!

We use both Oracle and MS-SQL Server. They both meet our criteria of being reliable, available, and secure. Both provide point-in-time recovery. I'm impressed with SQL Server's clustering over Oracle Parallel Server (OPS).

Best of luck finding an unbiased opinion...

[jrpm]

I think that you will find it more a matter of religion than science/technology.

Like KenEwald, I support both Oracle and SQL Server (about 30 servers each).

For databases under 100GB, both have their quirks, but ours have been equally stable, reliable and secure.

I haven't tried SS for databases over 100GB. We do have several Oracle ones in the 600GB to 2TB range. My impression (remember, no hard data) is that we could not get the performance in SS for the VLDBs, but that is because of the OS (Nt/2K/XP) requiring a lot more overhead than Unix (based on a 650GB NT O9i2 vs a 2TB HPUX O8.1.7.4).

But then, application design has more to do with performance than the RDBMS and/or OS.

[pando]

I thought with SQL Server clustering you have to partition your data?

[marist89]

http://otn.oracle.com/deploy/perform...ormanceV22.pdf