x

Oracle versus SQL Server

Which is better to use Oracle or SQL Server? Why? What are common problems with Oracle?
more ▼

asked Aug 27, 2011 at 10:51 PM in Default

preksha gravatar image

preksha
11 1 1 1

(comments are locked)
10|1200 characters needed characters left

5 answers: sort voted first

@Shawn_Melton brings up a good point. You need to use the version that best meets your needs. If you are fortunate that your application supports both and it is purely a choice of buy Oracle or MSSQL, then I would go with MSSQL. MSSQL is prices per CPU slot not per core like Oracle so your overall cost is much less. Also with MSSQL you have a much better SQL Community. I wrote a blog about some of the free training opportunities in the MSSQL community. Check it out here

From a simple ease of use approach I have heard that simple tasks in MSSQL can be quit cumbersome in Oracle.

So why chose MSSQL over Oracle, in my opinion MSSQL is just better. Better product, better ease of use, and simply the best community around.
more ▼

answered Aug 28, 2011 at 05:47 AM

Tim gravatar image

Tim
36.4k 38 41 139

Though I believe MS is going per core in the next version.
Nov 15, 2011 at 12:39 PM Blackhawk-17
This has been confirmed that MSSQL will be going to per core in Core Packs of 4. This blows. With 6 core processors you end up spending money on wasted cores. We will now have to focus on CPU's with cores divisible evenly by 4. :(
Nov 29, 2011 at 06:17 AM Tim
(comments are locked)
10|1200 characters needed characters left
I don't really think looking at it in which is better or worse has any benefit. There are places where SQL Server is a good fit and there are places where Oracle or any other DBMS is good fit. Base it own what you need and your environment. Both products can and do support vast amounts of data.
more ▼

answered Aug 28, 2011 at 12:59 AM

Shawn_Melton gravatar image

Shawn_Melton
5.3k 20 21 29

(comments are locked)
10|1200 characters needed characters left

I continue : SQL Server, absolutely.

I`ve worked with both and there is an enormous difference between them.

Oracle is complicated, cryptical and expensive. The old trick of capturing ( IBM is expert ) the user by means of making it intentionally complicated. Once the users tame the software, at high cost, it is very unlikely to switch to other RDBMS.

Oracle support is poor and very expensive.

Maybe the Oracle option is justified in very big installations where an hyphotetically better performance is needed and money is not a problem, but for the great majority of middle and even big databases : SQL Server by far.
more ▼

answered Nov 15, 2011 at 12:27 PM

Fernando gravatar image

Fernando
41 1

(comments are locked)
10|1200 characters needed characters left
SQL server is cheaper, easier and you get a complete data platform with etl tools, bi tools, compression,partitioning, master data and master data quality tools. In oracle you have to buy these separate.
more ▼

answered Nov 15, 2011 at 09:23 PM

Håkan Winther gravatar image

Håkan Winther
15.6k 35 37 48

(comments are locked)
10|1200 characters needed characters left
SQL Server, absolutely.
more ▼

answered Nov 15, 2011 at 12:09 PM

Fernando gravatar image

Fernando
41 1

(comments are locked)
10|1200 characters needed characters left
Your answer
toggle preview:

Up to 2 attachments (including images) can be used with a maximum of 524.3 kB each and 1.0 MB total.

New code box

There's a new way to format code on the site - the red speech bubble logo will automatically format T-SQL for you. The original code box is still there for XML, etc. More details here.

Follow this question

By Email:

Once you sign in you will be able to subscribe for any updates here

By RSS:

Answers

Answers and Comments

SQL Server Central

Need long-form SQL discussion? SQLserverCentral.com is the place.

Topics:

x378
x344

asked: Aug 27, 2011 at 10:51 PM

Seen: 1422 times

Last Updated: Aug 28, 2011 at 05:21 PM