Yes, it's quite obvious.Quote:
Originally posted by jonreade
You've obviously not used it seriously Tomaz.
I also haven't bought an apartment in a building selected for demolition for the same obviousness.
It was cheap though.
:D
Printable View
Yes, it's quite obvious.Quote:
Originally posted by jonreade
You've obviously not used it seriously Tomaz.
I also haven't bought an apartment in a building selected for demolition for the same obviousness.
It was cheap though.
:D
Quote:
Originally posted by jonreade
Abhay, yes, 1,048,516 Terabytes (1 Exabyte). :cool:
Each individual database file is limited to 32 Terabytes, so filegroups are required if you want to exceed this size, but you'd want to split a database of that size up over more than a single file (and over more than a single physical volume) for performance and backup reasons.
And you can have up to 32,767 of them per SQL Server instance.
Don't know how that compares with Oracle, but I guess for a single database, it's more than big enough for 99.999% of organisations. :)
Given current disk storage costs of say $100 per 100Gb drive, that's $1000/Tb, so it would cost you a cool $1 billion at a very conservative estimate just for the disk storage for a 1Eb database.
And that's without space for the transaction log.
At that point the price of the database software probably becomes slightly less relevant...
All these exagirated figures that you are giving are on paper...no where in reality ( Atleast I have seen ) MS SQl Server is not prefered where DB size will be in TB. Instead Oracle is prefered for DB ranging from few GB to Few TB ( < 50TB )...and above which Main Frames are prferred.
To tell you in our systems MS sqlserver are being replaced with oracle...since MS sqlserver just craches if data exceeds 500GB or so....
And the locking machanism in SQL Sever just sucks...
No row level locking huh?????
Only table level locking for any TRAN...and more sucking part is it will not allow you to read data when TRAN is active....
Only good part is GUI, but if you are good at commands why would you need that?
now coming to your 32TB file size ( max size )...do you how will OS ( WIN ) fumble while trying to retrive data from such files....
NO machaninsim for connectivity to DB(MS SQL SERVER) between Inter N/W ( Trusted Ones )... may it be through TCP or Named Pipes...
Architecture is worst...no major role for DBA's to tune DB coz it does all by itseld what it thinks better....
I have a doc where Oracle/MS Sql Server is compared..
Do you want me send you?
Abhay.
MS SQL Server has row locking from version 7 onwards.Quote:
Originally posted by abhaysk
No row level locking huh?????
I hate it when people refer to MS SQL Server as SQL Server.
SQL Server is every server that you can communicate to it with SQL.
"MS SQL Server" is the product name.
TOMAZZ :Quote:
Originally posted by TomazZ
MS SQL Server has row locking from version 7 onwards.
I hate it when people refer to MS SQL Server as SQL Server.
SQL Server is every server that you can communicate to it with SQL.
"MS SQL Server" is the product name.
Are you sure, the MS SQL Server has row level locking from 7.x?
Coz in our systems, IF TRAN 1 is acting on table A for rows say 1 to N, then TRAN 2 will wait till TRAN 1 compeletes iresspective of TRAN 2 actine ROWS Table A, may it be N+1 to M or so.
And also I have noted that SELECT doesnt work if any TRAN is acting on Table X.
From 2000 ver I dunnoo... I guess it does have row level in this Ver.
OK as far as usage of SQL Server is conserned, The DB in question was MS Sql Server, so i didnt find necessary to use MS.. MS.. MS.. always.....
Abhay.
. . . or even just SQL ! !Quote:
Originally posted by TomazZ
I hate it when people refer to MS SQL Server as SQL Server.
I AGREE !
ME TOOQuote:
Originally posted by DaPi
. . . or even just SQL ! !
I AGREE !
Why should other products like SQL and SQL servers get a bad name because of MS SQL Server. Be specific.
Guys why are you debating on one mistyped word or rather lazy not to type an extra MS, when we all know we are pointing MS SQL Server ;)
Actually you were quite generous with MSes in you posts relative to jonreade ;)Quote:
Originally posted by abhaysk
Guys why are you debating on one mistyped word or rather lazy not to type an extra MS, when we all know we are pointing MS SQL Server ;)
I hate the fact we all know that with SQL Server we are refering the MS SQL Server. This is also one of MS' pain in the ass (but successful) marketing approaches. Using common words for product names.
But anyway. If I say I am going to the office I don't expect you to know I mean MS Office.
So, why are we talking about Sybase SQL Server?
:D
"SUCKS, WORST, STUPID" sounds generous to you?Quote:
Originally posted by TomazZ
Actually you were quite generous with MSes in you posts relative to jonreade ;)
No, I was refering to your using of MS in product names.Quote:
Originally posted by abhaysk
"SUCKS, WORST, STUPID" sounds generous to you?
I wanted to explain that when I wrote "I hate not using MS in product names" it was not because of you posts, because it's quite obvious you use it.