Re: ADO.NET and SQL, Oracle

Tech Tip: Click here to run a free scan for Windows Errors and optimize PC performance

BTW Check this out Frans -
http://www.sdtimes.com/article/story-20050815-26.html

- Sahil Malik [MVP]
ADO.NET 2.0 book -
http://codebetter.com/blogs/sahil.malik/archive/2005/05/13/63199.aspx
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

"Frans Bouma [C# MVP]" <perseus.usenetNOSPAM@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:xn0e60slf2utu6000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sahil Malik [MVP] wrote:
>
> > Costs ARE a big important facet for enterprise databases (and every
> > other db for that matter). I have worked with a client that used to
> > pay over 2 million dollars a year to Oracle for licensing costs, just
> > by gradually switching to SQL Server over a period of 5-6 years, they
> > ended up saving 2 million $ a year (Well SQL Server licensing wasn't
> > as much atleast). 2 million $ is a lot. If you had a stack of $100
> > bills worth a 2,000,000 and you set fire to that, the fire would burn
> > for a month LOL. Trust me, they were extremely happy to save that
> > much every year.
>
> Though there are other costs, besides the license of the db. The same
> math is used by Microsoft to calculate the TOC of windows compared to
> linux: linux doesn't have a license fee yet comes out more expensive :)
>
>
> And Microsoft.com has zero downtime, are you telling
> > me that they are running on Oracle (Or Db2)?
>
> What does microsoft.com have to do with this? That site has 0 downtime
> because you don't notice downtime. That doesn't mean there isn't a
> problem with live backups.
>
> > BTW, I am curious why you say Paging code in Oracle is easier. I
> > think we discussed this sometime back, but can you refresh my memory
> > on this? BTW, we are comparing SQL2k5 with Oracle here. And Oracle
> > tools, you call SQL+ a "tool"? Honestly I wish SQL Server had a
> > lightweight client like SQL+ (Sorry osql doesn't qualify), but I
> > wouldn't trade SS Management Studio for SQL+.
>
> I'm not talking about sqlserver 2005, which is still in beta. Not a
> lot of enterprise apps will be build on a first release of sqlserver
> 2005. So doing paging code on oracle is extremely easy, doing it on
> sqlserver is hard. (it was just an example)
>
> YOu also should read more what I wrote: I said I used SQLtools, not
> SQL+.
>
> And what's SS Management studio, that beta toolkit? What's so special
> about that, besides it's running at the same speed as Oracle's 9i tools?
>
> > I'm not saying either database is inferior to the other, but when
> > viewed in a 100% microsoft shop, you'd better have a darn good reason
> > to go with oracle instead of SQL Server. I'm not saying reasons don't
> > exist, but they are very few and highly specialized.
>
> Well, I think differently, though that was not hte point of my post.
> My point was that you provided no reasons why people should stick with
> sqlserver besides the .NET client (irrelevant for a large db) and now
> pure license costs (which are just a part of the puzzle).
>
> The last thing we need is that people start to think that MVP==fanboy,
> as there are already enough MS fanboys around.
>
> Frans
>
> >
> > "Frans Bouma [C# MVP]" <perseus.usenetNOSPAM@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> > message news:xn0e5zuy4llt6m000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Sahil Malik [MVP] wrote:
> > >
> > >> Well, we both have our own views on this. But as I said in that mp3
> > >> download, unless you have very specific situations, you are better
> > >> off using SQL Server instead. Don't forget licensing cost either. I
> > >
> > > Licensing costs are not an issue with enterprise databases. What's
> > > far more an issue is that you have to take down the db to make a
> > > live backup or that you have to enable dirty reads to avoid
> > > blocking.
> > >
> > >> still feel that in a .NET world, it makes sense to stick with SQL
> > >> Server for a fresh development.
> > >
> > > Why? What's the core reason for that? Better .net client? Easier
> > > development? I don't think it's the case. I've done a lot of
> > > development on both, and I can't find much difference in ease of use
> > > from a .NET POV. I DO find differences in feature set, especially on
> > > the DB side. And No offence but that truly matters: first the DB,
> > > then the layer you use to talk to it.
> > >
> > >> Not enough reason to migrate your
> > >> company's database from Oracle to SQL Server as that may be a huge
> > >> undertaking, but if you are starting afresh, and you are choosing
> > >> Oracle over SQL Server, you need to have a very good explanation of
> > >> "why".
> > >
> > > I haven't heard much reasons from you why Sqlserver is better than
> > > Oracle in this :), other than ODP.NET is awful (why?, it's a huge
> > > download, but it contains the client as well).
> > >
> > > I mean: array parameters to send value sets to the DB for easy
> > > inserts/updates, multiple ref cursor returns to support multiple
> > > active resultsets, VERY EASY paging code etc.
> > >
> > > Oracle tools are sometimes a pain, but so is QA sometimes. I use
> > > SQLTools 1.4 now for oracle, and I haven't felt any problem with it.
> > > SQLServer is becoming easier than oracle in the next release, but
> > > that's not really reality yet.
> > >
> > > For small projects, don't bother, go for the cheapest, which is
> > > likely an open source db like Firebird or postgresql (and not
> > > sqlserver!). For larger projects, there are other things which
> > > count than .NET development ease.
> > >
> > > FB
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >> "Frans Bouma [C# MVP]" <perseus.usenetNOSPAM@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> > >> message news:xn0e5zhzp40517002@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >> > Sahil Malik [MVP] wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> Chakra,
> > >> > >
> > >> >> I recently voiced my views about SQL Server vs. Oracle over here
> > >> >>
> > >>
> > http://codebetter.com/blogs/sahil.malik/archive/2005/08/12/130633.aspx
> > >> > > >> >> IMO for a fresh project, you should go with SQL Server
> > unless you >> >> have very specific needs. And performance isn't the
> > only dang thing >> >> out there. ODP.NET is FULL of bugs, it is AWFUL
> > (see this - >> >>
> > >>
> > http://codebetter.com/blogs/sahil.malik/archive/2005/07/20/129504.aspx
> > >> >> ). >> > >
> > >> >> I think overall your blood pressure will be a lot lower if you
> > >> stick >> with a SQL Server and .NET combination.
> > >> >
> > >> > ODP.NET isn't that buggy. Just download an update. At least
> > they're >> > releasing updates for their provider unlike .... Also,
> > awful? How? >> > It provides the same interfaces as SqlClient!.
> > Furthermore, it >> > already supports MARS and full Xml
> > functionality, compared to >> > SqlClient. (oh, don't start with
> > mentioning beta stuff please) >> >
> > >> > I also think that deciding which database to use (!) based on the
> > >> > .NET client is the most unwisest thing you can possibly do.
> > Oracle >> > supports at the moment a large pack of feature which are
> > absent in >> > SqlServer 2000 (oh, of course they're coming in the
> > next version). >> >
> > >> > Don't get me wrong, I like SqlServer too, but for databases with
> > >> > terabytes of data and large tables (millions of rows) with a lot
> > of >> > users, it's key you have a feature like MVCC or isolatable
> > >> > transactions which are not blocking readers and readers who
> > aren't >> > blocking writers (so the only option you have is NOLOCK
> > hints... ) >> >
> > >> > Personally I never had that much problems with ODP.NET. It has
> > its >> > quircks, but so does SqlClient if I may add. Also, SqlServer
> > isn't >> > bugfree either.
> > >> >
> > >> > Your posting sounds a bit like an nVidia fanboy slamming ATi
> > >> > videocards. Please stick to the facts.
> > >> >
> > >> > FB
> > >> > >
> > >> >> "Chakra" <r_chakravarthy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > >> >> news:uCd0Yv%23nFHA.3300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >> >> > Are there any benchmarks for the performance of SQL versus
> > Oracle >> >> > using the
> > >> >> > SQLclient provider and the Oracle provider respectively ?
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > We find that in our application, that SQL outperforms Oracle
> > by >> >> > 100%. Is this the usual pattern ?
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Get LLBLGen Pro, productive O/R mapping for .NET: http://www.llblgen.com
> My .NET blog: http://weblogs.asp.net/fbouma
> Microsoft MVP (C#)
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: ADO.NET and SQL, Oracle
    ... Well when I compare SQL ... Server and Oracle, I tend to think in terms of SQL2k5. ... > I'm not talking about sqlserver 2005, ... I'm not saying reasons don't ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.adonet)
  • Re: Most sought after IT skills by UK employers
    ... Since when Oracle!= SQL? ... One would bet there are online Internet resources which can be ... Apparently you are from the sqlserver area. ...
    (comp.databases.oracle.server)
  • Re: Most sought after IT skills by UK employers
    ... Since when Oracle!= SQL? ... Apparently you are from the sqlserver area. ... Evil Empire of William H Gates III ...
    (comp.databases.oracle.server)
  • Re: Migration using oracle as data source
    ... The error happens during migration (where the wizard cannot analyze the SQL ... fragments from AS2000 objects) or the migration wizard succeeds, ... The oracle one didn't make it. ... sqlserver, and then I was able to migrate to 2005 succesfully. ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.olap)
  • Re: Replace Oracle with Open Source DB?
    ... We have an Oracle 10g installation. ... The XML files and the Lucene indexes are sent off to web farms. ... The institution now favors using open source products wherever it makes ... Consider the costs - ...
    (comp.databases.oracle.tools)