Oracle or SQL Server White Paper
July 18, 2009
Relational databases are with us for the duration. The problem I have is that today’s data flows do not mesh easily with these technology relics. That does not prevent organizations from buying into an RDBMS that stakeholders, enterprise software vendors, and IT professionals expect to be available. If you are trying to decide between Oracle or SQL Server, you may find some guidance in a white paper by Rick Veague, CTO, of IFS North America. The title of the white paper is “Databases and ERP Selection: Oracle vs SQL Server.
IFS is, according to the company’s Web site:
IFS, the global enterprise applications company, provides software solutions that enable organizations to become more agile. Founded in 1983, IFS pioneered component-based enterprise resources planning (ERP) software with IFS Applications, now in its seventh generation. IFS’ component architecture provides solutions that are easier to implement, run, and upgrade, and that give companies the flexibility to respond quickly to market changes, new business opportunities, and new technologies. IFS has a solid, growing presence in the North American business software market. IFS North America serves medium-size to large companies in a variety of key industries, including aerospace and defense, industrial manufacturing, automotive, high-tech, construction, and process industries such as food and beverage.
Getting the white paper requires that you sign up for a Bitpipe.com account. (Bitpipe.com is an outfit that charges companies to publish white papers. A person looking for a white paper can then search Bitpipe.com, download the paper, and revel in the information. Students find Bitpipe.com useful. Bitpipe.com sends the emails and particulars of those who download papers to the companies paying to publish their white papers. I use a special email address for these documents and the follow up mailings, which makes it easy to keep track of these communications.)
The main points of the white paper seem to me to be:
- The industry standard for databases is Oracle. Therefore, SQL Server is probably not the right choice for those who have the right stuff
- Oracle is not any more expensive than Microsoft SQL Server. Therefore, Microsoft’s cost pitch is not exactly accurate.
- Oracle scales. SQL Server scales but it is more work, more expensive, etc. Therefore, for big jobs, use Oracle.
In short, this white paper makes a case for Oracle, not SQL Server.
That’s okay. I understand that white papers are marketing collateral. However, the thoughts that zipped through my mind as I read this document were:
- RDBMS are tomorrow’s mainframes. Once you have an application hooked into these puppies, that app is going to require the Codd technology. Getting divorced is not an option.
- Big data flows will create some interesting challenges. The read write issues require that programmers find ways to handle deltas and near real time index updates. But the volume of data will continue to increase making the fracture lines of Codd architectures more easily visible.
- New database vendors and data management vendors may have to improve their marketing. Aster Data, among others, have a modest profile in the world that IFS inhabits. Absence concedes the sector to the marketers with the bigger air horn.
- Search is a significant issue. Oracle has a low, low profile with regard to SES10g, Ultra Search, Text, or whatever the solution is called. Microsoft has its SQL search functionality and the yet-to-be-delivered Fast ESP solution for structured data. Therefore, how does one get stuff out of these systems in a speedy, easy, economical way? I would use a third party solution based on my experience. So that’s an extra cost for the Codd solution. Not mentioned in the white paper.
My thought is that white papers constitute an interesting class of information. I don’t feel comfortable using the term “disinformation”, but for a person taking an argument at face value can provide a skewed view of the data management options. Just my opinion.
Stephen Arnold, July 18, 2009
Comments
2 Responses to “Oracle or SQL Server White Paper”
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
This is just my experience:
We have built a .Net system based on sql server. and later, ported it to Oracle.
my observations:
1) You need 10 times more time and knowledge to build in Oracle.
2) everything in Oracle is tunable. It is very easy to make a mistake that will kill your performance. Oracle will not tell you when you make the mistake.
3) There are small things like 31 characters names, and uppercase letters, that make the schema suprisingly unreadable.
4) I could tune my 1000 users system with the suplied profiler. Oracle needs a real expert to get not much better results.
5) managing stored procedures was much simpler than in Oracle.
6) Oracle locking is much much better than MS sql locking – this is critical for big systems.
for a system like the one we built (about 60 man years, 1000 on-line users, 0.5 TB data) – sql server costs millions less to implement than Oracle.
[…] Oracle or SQL Server White Paper (arnoldit.com) […]