Again, you should do a search of this forum, as we have covered this topic a few times already.
Just to rebut a few misleading points in this particular thread:
- SQLServer has the lion's share of the TPC benchmarks, which Oracle whole-heartedly backed until they started losing. Still, that is the only accepted 'standard' and SQLServer has most of them. Therefore, to say that Oracle is always faster is unsupported, IMHO
- To say that Oracle is a *little* more difficult to administer is a *major* understatement. They could not be further apart. SQLServer is phenomenally easier to administer than Oracle. They are not even in the same sport, much less league, much less ballpark.
- "Because it's not a Microsoft product"? Have you actually compared most Microsoft products with most products from *any* other vendor? *Especially* Oracle. Oracle's products, by and large, are terrible. They seemingly have no ability to make things understandable. They are unable to design a good user-interface to save their lives. If you look at the products made from Windows 3.0, you might start to see similarities to Oracle interfaces, they are *that* far behind the curve.
Also, what is the big "we hate Bill" thing all about anyway? I'm sorry, Mr. psychopath Ellison is better how? And McNealy? They are birds of a feather. They are megalomaniacs trying to out-boast each other in search of your approval and dollars. Trying to distinguish one from the others is pretty much pointless and practically impossible. To actually try to support that one is 'good' while the others are 'bad' is nothing short of either political posturing or religious faith, with as little foundation in truth as either one.
- As for functionality in one vs the other, there are several glaring ommisions in Oracle as well. The inability to create a case-insensitive database is unforgivable, IMHO. Their implementation of 'temporary' tables is pathetic. They have multiple code bases, a separate SQL engine for PL/SQL, and several constructs that don't show up in EXPLAIN PLANs. Yeah, Explain Plans - there's another idiotic implementation. That and the DUAL table - ridiculous.
- As for market share proving the point - let's get real. Everyone knows that Beta was a better format, yet it is dead. The Mac may be a better machine and Quattor Pro may have been a better spreadsheet, but they all lost the race for market share. That's because the market share race is not necessarily won by the best product. there are wayyyy too many factors involved for things to be that simple. For example, the armies of Oracle devotees here who are ready to duke it out that Oracle is better yet know practically nothing about SQLServer itself. These companies are masters at FUD, at stretching the truth and at boasting about any percieved advantage. On the flip side, let's actually look at SQLServer's share - it was 0% 7 years ago - now its almost 20. I wonder what the next 7 years will hold.
Now, don't get me wrong. I am not a Microsoft zealot in any way, shape or form. Sun either, or IBM, for that matter. I think they are all incredible companies that have made some incredible products (and an incredible amount of money). They have all made some incredibly idiotic mistakes as well, but that is human nature. However, one must have an open mind when comparing and contrasting these companies and their products. I have been using only Oracle for several years now. I have found many places where it is better than SQLServer. I have found many where it is not. They are two significantly different solutions to the same problem, and they are both pretty darn good at it. I would have to say the same for IBM. They have been back with a vengeance lately. They claim to be incredibly cheaper than Oracle in TCO. They also have an optimizer that most people agree beats Oracle's hands-down. They also have more entries in the TPC benchmarks than Oracle. Right now, the race is too close to call. Good luck in your religious argument with your friend, however ;)
Rant over
- Chris
