SQL Server vs Oracle?!

[Steve Kershaw]

I need your help!

I'm working at a company that is considering changing from Oracle to
SQL Server 2005. The debate goes on and on and on....

I need some arguments that will help me convince those who are on the
fence to go to SQL Server 2005 for all new development projects. Can
anybody help me with this?

Steve

 

[John Timney \(MVP\)]

A resonable amount of results come up in google on this as its a common
consideration for people.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=e...0&ct=result&cd=1&q=SQL+2005+vs+oracle&spell=1

Specifically, take read of
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/solutions/migration/oracle/oraclemigratewp.mspx

You need to question why they are thinking of changing, and if the
justification can be achieved. I prefer SQL server but thats because we
have SQL DBA's who know how to use it correctly. If your companies DBA's
are unskilled in SQL server then instantly you have a significant reskilling
cost and a risk for all new projects. Look at that at least against the
Total Costs of Ownership, and the benefits of SQL Server and VS.NET
integration leading to reduced time to market and you may have some valid
arguments.

--
Regards

John Timney (MVP)
VISIT MY WEBSITE:
http://www.johntimney.com
http://www.johntimney.com/blog

 

[Mark Rae]

I'm working at a company that is considering changing from Oracle to
SQL Server 2005. The debate goes on and on and on....

First question - why is your company considering this...? Are they unhappy
with Oracle for some reason...? Is it maybe too expensive...? Oracle is a
huge player in the RDMBS market...

I need some arguments that will help me convince those who are on the
fence to go to SQL Server 2005 for all new development projects. Can
anybody help me with this?

Depends what your company thinks is currently wrong with Oracle...

If it's currently working for you, I really can't think of any reason to
change...

 

[Cowboy \(Gregory A. Beamer\)]

I can give you the marketing BS and my personal preferences and why. But,
those are not objective reasons to switch your RDBMS platform. SQL SERer
2005 is finally at a level where I feel it can compete head-to-head with
Oracle on many levels. It scales much better than Oracle. There are also
many added benefits, like asynch queues (Service Broker), Reporting and
Notifications, along with the ability to easily implement SOA through HTTP
endpoints. But, your company may have already spent the money to have all of
that in Oracle. Unless they are unhappy with ongoing fees, I see few reasons
to just dump Oracle.

You need to give more information about what you are doing and the reasons
for considering SQL Server over Oracle for future development. In addition,
what are the skillsets of your DBAs; if they are all Oracle, you have a
hiring issue.

 

[sloan]

I've used Oracle 9i.

(let me say that I'm a Sql Server 7.0,2000,2005 first)

And the XML functionality in Sql Server is much easier, better in my
opinion.

Oracle XML was a total pain compared to sql server.

But I wouldn't say that would justify a move from Oracle to SqlServer. As
"pro Sql Server" as I am.

...............................

But I wanted to share that direct experience item with you.

 

[Karl Seguin]

Well, between December 2000 and November 2006, 233 security vulnerabilities
were found in Oracle database products by OUTSIDE researchers versus 59 for
SQL server.

Also since the release of SQL Server 2005, Microsoft hasn't released a
single security patch - and it isn't because they've been lazy, it's because
nothing's been found yet.

Here are some sources:
http://www.computerworld.com/action...cleBasic&articleId=9005383&source=rss_topic17

http://www.databasesecurity.com/dbsec/comparison.pdf

Oracle has seen a huge increase in security issues lately and has received a
lot of bad press for it..

Karl

 

[wfairl]

Funny, I don't see any measure of actual severity listed here anywhere.
I would take 1000+ app crashes over 1 slammer worm.

These are both good RDBMS systems and the decision between them should
be dependent mainly on your resources (staff knowledge as well as
money) and the actual application(s) (performance/scalability needs,
target platforms, etc). Since you haven't supplied any of this
information it's hard for us to offer much constructive help.

 

[Karl Seguin]

That's a fair point...but, without having a source handy, I'm almost
positive that there have been no security issues (yet) with SQL Server 2005
while there have been numeruous issues with Oracle's latest offering - 30
something this year alone I believe.

Slammer sucked, but it looks like they were atleast able to learn from it..

Karl

 

[Robbe Morris [C# MVP]]

Having used both, I strongly prefer SQL Server 2005.
Much better tools making it easier to administrate.

The .NET integration offers nice flexibility with
windows apps and asp.net applications. The whole
microsoft set of offerings and toolsets are superior
to Oracle and the common java implementations.

Being able to use the same database on the desktop
as you would on the server makes it much easier
to create software families that work both locally/disconnected
and in partnership with server oriented members of
the family.

--
Robbe Morris - 2004-2006 Microsoft MVP C#
I've mapped the database to .NET class properties and methods to
implement an multi-layered object oriented environment for your
data access layer. Thus, you should rarely ever have to type the words
SqlCommand, SqlDataAdapter, or SqlConnection again.
http://www.eggheadcafe.com/articles/adonet_source_code_generator.asp

 

[Mark Rae]

Much better tools making it easier to administrate.

'Administrate'...???

Tsk tsk, Robbie... ;-)