Fog Creek Software
Discussion Board




ms sql server vs oracle sql server

i want complete info about this topic

m . basit munir
Thursday, February 27, 2003

You'd better start looking for it then....

JP
Thursday, February 27, 2003

I'm also looking for this.

Specifically the implementation differences between the Data Definition Language (e.g. create table, table properties) and Data Manipulation Language (SQL command syntax).

I also need date formats.

See previous thread about Database Platform Independence.

Justin
Thursday, February 27, 2003

http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/deployment/2000/MigrateOracle.asp

Just me (Sir to you)
Thursday, February 27, 2003

Good luck. It's difficult to get a non-biased opinion on this. It's almost a religion with some folks.

A better way of approaching this might be to state your requirements here. There are plenty of educated folks on JOS that could probably help you if they knew what the requirements for your project are.

But there is no way anyone can say which is better without knowing what is needed.

Go Linux Go!
Thursday, February 27, 2003

My review of Oracle 8i:
http://www.epinions.com/content_18895179396

HTH,
Philo

Philip Janus
Thursday, February 27, 2003

Microsoft tools vs. Sun, Oracle, IBM

I noticed that your review basically was saying that when you used SQL Server things were much more user friendly for you than Oracle.

I have worked with both SQL Server, Oracle & DB2 as well as VB, ASP, Vb.net & Java, Weblogic & Dynamo - Windows & Unix

I have found the same true that Microsoft seems to know how to make developers lives a little bit easier, using GUI tools. This is clearly seen from SQL vs. Oracle or DB2 & Visual Studio vs. sun's command line Java Tools (although I like & use Eclipse a lot now).

Why does Sun, Oracle, IBM & UNIX  - care so little about making nice tools for developers. Why do they favor command line driven tools which are so archaic? Is it for job security & so you have to hire their consultants?????

I thought GUI techniques (XEROX) were supposed to be the next evolution after command line driven computers?

Any comments?

KenB
Thursday, February 27, 2003

>Why does Sun, Oracle, IBM & UNIX  - care so little about
>making nice tools for developers.

I don't know, but one guess would be that both IBM DB2 and Oracles databases are mature products. I mean Oralces DB has been around since 1979, and I would guess IBM DB2 is of the same age.

Back in -79, command line interfaces were all the rage :-)

Another thing is that both DB2 and Oracle are multi platform, but MSSQL Server is Windows only. All multi platform tools suffer in usablility, since widgets have different capabilities on different platforms. MS can disregard this and do all nifty Windows-only tricks in the GUI.

Java tools are maybe as good as it gets when doing multiplatform GUIS, but Java suffers from poor widget implementations on some platforms, which leads to it not behaving like we are all used to.

Patrik
Thursday, February 27, 2003

Philo, MySQL has a neat FULLTEXT index.  Not sure about fuzzy, but might be of interest to you.

My impressions of SQL Server and Oracle are the same as everyone else.  TOAD is all that makes Oracle friendly.  If you actually have to get your hands dirty in installing/administering it, be prepared to loath it.  SQL Server by comparision is a charm.  But I remember when it was textbased and only run on OS/2..

This doesn't mean that SQL Server is a superior engine underneath, it just has more shined bodywork.

nice
Thursday, February 27, 2003

Patrick,

The SQL Server lineage goes all the way back to 1987 with the Sybase DataServer product (first released on Sun Unix). It was not called SQL Sever until 1989 when the 1.0 release for OS/2.
While not 79, command line was still quite common in 87 as well.

Several third party GUI tools handle both Oracle and SQL Server very well.

Just me (Sir to you)
Thursday, February 27, 2003

I'll second the notion to check out MySQL.

MySQL isn't for everyone but it is a solid database system that has proven it can scale quite well. With the MySQL Control Center, you have a nifty GUI that is quite similiar to MS-SQL's Enterprise Manager. Since it runs on on Windows and a large variety of Unix systems, you aren't tied into just Windows.

MySQL does lack stored procedures which can quite be quite unsettling since most developers hate putting a ton of SQL logic into their applications. (Although stored procs are in the hopper for future releases.)

Go Linux Go!
Thursday, February 27, 2003

"This doesn't mean that SQL Server is a superior engine underneath, it just has more shined bodywork. "

Well, I believe that for 95% of databases, SQL Server is more than adequate. And as I alluded to in my review, the other 5% of projects shouldn't be undertaken by people who are reading epinions to choose a database (they should be undertaken by people who have implemented similar projects on several platforms and can identify the pros and cons of each).

As for "shined bodywork" - IMHO Sql Server is easier to install and maintain. That makes TCO cheaper. If they perform equally well, and the backend is transparent to your user, what's left? ;-)

Philo

Philip Janus
Thursday, February 27, 2003

"MySQL does lack stored procedures"

Heh. Something always kills MySQL from the running. Last time I got it out of a requirements document it was by telling the mortgage company that wanted to use it "MySQL doesn't have transactions" (at the time it didn't).

Now it doesn't have SP's.

I'm sorry, but that, once again, takes it out of the race. Inline queries aren't just about happy developers - it's about security, scalability, and maintainability.

Philo

Philip Janus
Thursday, February 27, 2003

Sir,

I know that MS SQL Server is based on Sybase. However I did not know that the first version was for OS/2.

But I guess all but the Windows versions of SQL Server has now been discontinued, which gives MS the upper hand because they can write their tools for a single platform.

Agreed, I wouldnt cope without third party products in my daily work. Being stuck in SQL*Plus would certainly be a bad joke in my book :)

Patrik
Thursday, February 27, 2003

SQL Server has long since gone the road of reusing everything in the base platform it can get away with. This is a deliberate choice by the SS team to avoid duplicate efforts.
Porting it now to a widly different platform would be a very “interesting” exercise.

Just me (Sir to you)
Thursday, February 27, 2003

Philo,

I'll agree that not having SP is a major problem. However, I've seen several shops that are quite happy to use MySQL because it saved them hundreds of thousands of dollars in licensing to Oracle.  In most of these cases, they implemented all of their database code in database access layer classes so it wasn't too terribly tough to maintain.

Some shops just refuse to run Windows so that puts MS-SQL out of the running. In these cases, it often means that Oracle is the only contender. Once the IT manager gets over the Oracle sticker shock, the begin to look again at MySQL.

I actually consider myself a MS SQL Server guy. I've been using it since they split from Sybase so I feel very comfortable with it and it's my RDBMS of choice in a Windows environment. But MySQL has a special place in my heart because of it's amazing power for a simple, cross platform and free RDBMS.

As I mentioned in a previous post, MySQL isn't for everyone, but if your budget is tight and platform independence is required then it's at least worth taking a look at.

Go Linux Go!
Thursday, February 27, 2003

"If you're reading this opinion, don't buy Oracle."

Nice bit of honesty there Philo. I think you also describe quite well why all "job security" minded DBA's prefer Oracle ;-).

Just me (Sir to you)
Thursday, February 27, 2003

GLG,

here is a good reference for Oracle on Windows:

http://www.idg.net/ic_1186278_9677_1-5044.html

Just me (Sir to you)
Thursday, February 27, 2003

Hehehe..you must have me confused with the rabid Anti-MS crowd. Lots of companies moving from Unix to Windows. Doesn't bother me one whit.

But there are lots of companies that are getting tired of shoveling money to Redmond, too. And for those companies, using MS-SQL isn't an option. That leaves Oracle and DB/2. Neither are very cheap.

Go Linux Go!
Thursday, February 27, 2003

For all of you that are dismissing Oracle because of the lack of gui tools (which has improved with the 8i releases that include the java based mgmt tools. It is true that you probably need a tool like SQLNavigator or Toad as a good query tool and stored procedure editor)

try the following in SQL Server.

In one SQL Query window run this...

BEGIN TRAN

INSERT INTO mytable(
  mycolumn) VALUES (  'somevalue')

WAITFOR DELAY '00:00:30'

COMMIT

In another SQL Query window, run this....

SELECT count(*) from mytable

The second query will not return the result until the first one commits. What's up with that? In fact, if someone has a transaction open that is updating any row in the table, a select * will be blocked by the transaction unless you use dirty reads or WITH (readpast).

This usually only comes up during long-running transactions, which is a scenario I have to deal with - I have an invoice that has almost a hundred thousand line items (telecom). I don't want to partially load it  - it has to be the whole thing or nothing. But then that forces me to use dirty reads for the rest of the system.

And oh, Oracle does not have this problem.

AEB
Thursday, February 27, 2003

>>>>That leaves Oracle and DB/2. Neither are very cheap. <<<<<<<

Actually I seem to remember seeing IBM Linux single processor servers with DB2 included for sale for around $5,000, hardware and software included.

Single processor licenses for MSSQL were about $6,000 last time I looked, and then you'd have to add the cost of the W2000 server license and the hardware.

The costs are still peanuts compared to what you would be paying the developer, even if he was doing an Access project for SQL server, which is about as fast as you can get in development short of writing for Access itself.

Either way you seem to be paying a lot of money fro Oracle when either DB2 or MS SQL server will do the trick for all but multi-million dollar projects.

As someone obliged to use Oracle as an end user at work I can only say that I have never seen such a horrible user interface; moreover it took the DBA about over twenty minutes simply to install the app on each client machine.

Stephen Jones
Thursday, February 27, 2003

"And oh, Oracle does not have this problem."

As I pointed out - if you know of a specific reason to use Oracle, you won't be looking for help with the decision. But if you're surfing the web trying to decide, then you're probably in a position where just getting Oracle installed will eat half your project time and budget.

Philo

Philip Janus
Thursday, February 27, 2003

I used to loathe Oracle with my limited experience but after getting my hands dirty with it I found some things I really enjoyed using as a developer that I would like to see in other packages such as SQL server. I no longer fear either one and given the choice I would choose Oracle over SQL server ONLY if I did not have to be the installer and administrator. Working within Government you tend to find a pro Oracle crowd because of it's ability to move to higher performance platforms with more CPUs.

I tend to use SQL server in my .Net development because it meshes so well with ADO. Some of the types in Oracle do not play nice with ADO, such as a cursor type. I can work around it, and have, but given the choice I would vote for SQL server when developing in .Net. In Java it's a different story, Oracle is usually the go to DB.

Ian Stallings
Thursday, February 27, 2003

>> And for those companies, using MS-SQL isn't an option. That leaves Oracle and DB/2. Neither are very cheap.

If MySQL doesn't meet your needs, try PostgreSQL or SAP DB. Both are OpenSource and don't have license fees but do ahve paid support available.  http://www.postgresql.org/ and http://www.sapdb.org/

RocketJeff
Thursday, February 27, 2003

As others have alluded to (but never actually wrote) the decision on which DB product to purchase and use depends on the work environment.

For example, large organizations typically have a "bake off" where representatives from Microsoft, Oracle, etc. come in and pitch their product to a group of individuals.  After the "bake off" has ended, a committee sits around and weighs through all the pros and cons of each product before making its final decision on which one will become the "official" database of choice for the company.  In most cases, Oracle usually wins because of "multi-platform" considerations. 

Note: SQL Server can still be found in large organizations, however, in most situations it is only being used at the departmental level. In other words, some "big huncho" in the marketing department for example gave a project team the backing and approval to use something other than Oracle.

One Programmer's Opinion
Thursday, February 27, 2003

The present versions of SQL Server are unrelated to the Sybase original.

John Topley
Thursday, February 27, 2003

> MySQL does lack stored procedures

BTW, mysql does have stored procs now, but (my god why?) it supports them in perl, not typical transact-sql.  Quite the pyhrric victory, but it should be said.

Postgres should get a mention as well...support for "normal" stored procs, quite good speed, and installation and administration is almost as easy as mysql.

Chas
Thursday, February 27, 2003

Justin wrote:

>> I also need date formats.

For SQL Server, use YYYYMMDD (this is documented in the help files). Or use any format you like, and run it through CONVERT.

Even better, use parameterised queries (if using ADO) - http://www.vb-faq.com/vb_commandments.asp (XV).

Seeya

Matthew
Thursday, February 27, 2003

"BTW, mysql does have stored procs now, but (my god why?) it supports them in perl, not typical transact-sql.  Quite the pyhrric victory, but it should be said."

Ahh..Learn something new every day. Given a choice between writing my stored procs in Perl, or keeping my db code wrapped up in a C++ class....I'll take the C++ class.

Go Linux Go!
Thursday, February 27, 2003

<AEB writes>

try the following in SQL Server.

In one SQL Query window run this...
...
</AEB>

I was wondering if someone was going to mention the locking differences. SQL Server uses "pessimistic" locking were as Oracle uses "optimistic" locking. SQL Server books online has good information about the differences.

The locking differences are the biggest difference between the databases.

Jeff

Sorry
Thursday, February 27, 2003

Yeah, whereas in Oracle ...."Both exclusive and share locks always allow queries on the locked resource, but prohibit other activity on the resource (such as updates and deletes). "

SQL Server doesn't allow queries (unless dirty read) on exclusive locked data - which to me makes no sense.

On the other hand, I like the DTS tools that come with SQL Server and I prefer stored procedure programming with T-SQL.

Java has better support for Oracle, DB2 compared to SQL Server but .NET's ADO.NET works best with SQL Server.

Keep in mind, even with SQL Server, once you start needing clustering and fail-over, expect to pay up for Enterprise Edition....20k per cpu.

I've used both extensively, could go either way - depends on what the client needs (price vs. platform independence, etc.)

AEB
Thursday, February 27, 2003

"After the "bake off" has ended, a committee sits around and weighs through all the pros and cons of each product before making its final decision on which one will become the "official" database of choice for the company.  In most cases, Oracle usually wins because of "multi-platform" considerations. "

Heh.
Again - if you need help deciding, then IMHO the cheapest solution is SQL Server.

And I have never, ever, ever understood the "multi platform" argument, either for Oracle or Java - do companies really run around changing their platforms every few years?

"And just in case Sun gets a better salesman next year, let's hedge our bets on this Windows thing"

Philo

Philip Janus
Thursday, February 27, 2003

I think the "multi platform" refers to the fact that the customer already has an investment in Sun/HPUX/AIX that they want to leverage - i.e. they don't want to add another Windows server.

But, yes, I know one customer that have switched from HP-UX to AIX and another one that went from SUN to HP-UX.

AEB
Thursday, February 27, 2003

Choice of database boils down mostly to application needs and platform. SQL Server is great for Microsoft environments. Oracle is available for Windows, but is immature on that platform (I don't know of any large scale implementations of Oracle on Windows, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist). MySQL is great for a fast website database, but tends to corrupt data under heavy loads, and is HORRIBLE under Windows. Postgresql is a real solid open source db that's good for application development in smaller companies that can't afford the licenseing costs of Oracle or SQL server.

Each db has it's own strengths and weaknessess, though I wouldn't put MySQL in the same class as SQL Server or Oracle - though it is faster, it is less robust. Each db has it's own set of problems and work arounds.

When choosing between Oracle or SQL Server, I would more focus on the underlying platform and application requirements.

Wayne Earl
Thursday, February 27, 2003

"I think the "multi platform" refers to the fact that the customer already has an investment in Sun/HPUX/AIX that they want to leverage - i.e. they don't want to add another Windows server."

Ah, the old "sunk cost" fallacy.
IMHO, the analysis *should* be:
a) Cost of maintaining the existing installation
vs
b) Cost of buying and maintaining a Windows installation

Where both take into account hardware, licensing, support costs and development costs.

"We've already spent [x]" is crying over spilt milk.

Philo

Philip Janus
Thursday, February 27, 2003

It's not just hardware costs - it's also the sys admin and support staff. If you already have people that know Solaris/HP-UX/AIX why would you add a Window's server that you're at a minimum going to have to add training costs for or even have to hire additional staff.

Hardware is usualy the lesser expense - it's the people costs when adding new environments that gets expensive. And I think we've all seen recently just how much trouble a badly maintained MS-SQL Server can get you...

RocketJeff
Thursday, February 27, 2003

Hi Philip Janus,

RocketJeff and AEB did a good job of covering some of the reasons Oracle gets selected in large corporations.

Philip Janus wrote, "Again - if you need help deciding, then IMHO the cheapest solution is SQL Server."

Again as RocketJeff mentioned hardware costs and the cost of the database product itself is typically not the biggest factors for companies with deep pockets. The salespeople are not only there to sell their product but to answer specific questions company interviewers may have.

Philip Janus wrote, "And I have never, ever, ever understood the "multi platform" argument, either for Oracle or Java - do companies really run around changing their platforms every few years?"

My gut says no, but I don't think anyone can answer this question with certainty. Anyway, the situation I described (committee decision making process) is what went on inside a lot of large corporations during the early to mid 1990s.  Btw, during this time period SQL Server was considered by many to be a very weak product. I am sure that the decision making process is a lot less formal at smaller companies.

Philip Janus wrote, "And just in case Sun gets a better salesman next year, let's hedge our bets on this Windows thing"

The people making "enterprise I.T. decisions" are normally senior I.T. employees (DBAs, tech leaders, managers, etc.) and most of them have heard enough sales pitches during their careers that they are rarely swayed by smooth talking salespeople.

One Programmer's Opinion
Friday, February 28, 2003

Wayne: "I don't know of any large scale implementations of Oracle on Windows, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist"
Your wish is my command :-)
[Fortis Health consolidating on Windows (3 x Unisys ES7000)] 70000
... Best of all, the migration from Unix on the IBM mainframe to Windows has gone without a hitch, said Jones. "Windows has gotten so robust as to cut out low-end Unix, and not so low-end. We've moved, for example, from Oracle over Unix to Oracle over Windows without a problem."
http://www.idg.net/ic_1186278_9677_1-5044.html

Just me (Sir to you)
Friday, February 28, 2003

Despite cutting my teeth on big MS SQL databases, and having spent far too long writing whole dynamic websites in pl/sql (yuck!) and having to get quite a bit into assisting the dbas (and I'm an everyday coder normally), despite all this exposure to them, I can't say I like either of them better than the other.  I can't say I like either of them.

I can see that MS SQL Server is easier to install and administer.  I can also see that Oracle shines when you need that 10th disk array.

For small databases, or even just prototyping systems, Access or MySQL always seems adequate.

What I have never seen is Postgres nor DB2.  I'd like to, to widen my ability to make informed decisions.

I think that the job of installing is not too important.  A day or three, so what.  Get someone who knows what they are doing to do it.

I think that the most important thing is choosing the right tool for the right job.  I don't think that listening to anyone else's opinions matter; I think to make an informed decision you need to have _played_ with both.

And stored procedures are a real pain in the neck.  Almost all databases can be queried with proper safe lowest-common-denominator SQL and you'll stay portable that way.  For example, I usually develop against Access but deploy against Oracle.  Or whatever.

Well Philo, you surely have strong opinions.  A favourite product.  Myself, I am not so sure.  I choose on a job by job basis.

And one day I might broaden my experience and play with DB2 or Postgres too.  Widen my options.

nice
Friday, February 28, 2003

<<I was wondering if someone was going to mention the locking differences. SQL Server uses "pessimistic" locking were as Oracle uses "optimistic" locking. SQL Server books online has good information about the differences.>>

Wrong

Books online gives us:
Microsoft® SQL Server™ supports a wide range of optimistic and pessimistic concurrency control mechanisms. Users specify the type of concurrency control by specifying:

A transaction isolation level for a connection.
Concurrency options on cursors.
These attributes can be defined using either Transact-SQL statements or through the properties and attributes of the database APIs such as ADO, OLE DB, and ODBC.

See Also

Mike
Friday, February 28, 2003

"Philip Janus wrote, "And I have never, ever, ever understood the "multi platform" argument, either for Oracle or Java - do companies really run around changing their platforms every few years?"

Most don't, but that isn't the point. I've been in a lot of shops where they just want the safety net of knowing that if they decide to dump Windows or Unix then they won't have to purchase a new RDBMS.

I've also been in hetergenous shops that simply want the knowledege that *if they ever need to* they can move all their databases to "that" Windows server. (Or the other way around)

Does the switch happen that often? Not in my experience, but I know a lot of IT managers that just want that little safety net.

Go Linux Go!
Friday, February 28, 2003

An article that discusses some of these issues of portability is http://www.neward.net/ted/weblog/index.jsp?date=20030228#1046426990527

Just me (Sir to you)
Friday, February 28, 2003

<Quote>
Oracle is available for Windows, but is immature on that platform (I don't know of any large scale implementations of Oracle on Windows, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist).
<Quote/>

LOL

And no large scale implementations can not possibly be linked to the fact that big enterprises still see MSWIN2000 as a toy? :>

drazen
Friday, February 28, 2003

"The people making "enterprise I.T. decisions" are normally senior I.T. employees (DBAs, tech leaders, managers, etc.) and most of them have heard enough sales pitches during their careers that they are rarely swayed by smooth talking salespeople."

Wow. Where have you been working, because I wanna go!

In my experience, "enterprise IT *recommendations*" are normally made by senior IT Employees.

"Enterprise IT *decisions*" are made by management, who may or may not have any IT background at all. And yes, they are very, very easily swayed by a good salesman with a slick presentation and their own personal FUD collection.

Put it this way - check out my "Universal Business Adapter" thread. Someone has already made a significant investment in that product, and presented the website as justification for their decision.

Philo

Philo
Friday, February 28, 2003

<Mike says>
Books online gives us:
Microsoft® SQL Server™ supports a wide range of optimistic and pessimistic concurrency control mechanisms. Users specify the type of concurrency control by specifying:
</Mike>

Mike,

If you want to work around pestimistic locking, there's a number of ways to get SQL Server to do dirty-reads. However this will not give you the same behavior as Oracle.

Oracle uses the roll-back segment to prevent dirty-reads and prevent "readers" from locking tables from "writers".

For example, at 12:00pm user1 starts a 60 minute query to build a report. At 12:15pm user2 updates one of the records user1 will read at 12:30.

In SQL Server, under default behavior, user2 will block until user1's query finished.

In Oracle, under default behavior, user2 will not block. When user1's query gets to the row user2 updated, Oracle will get the values at that row prior to the update from the roll-back segement.

In SQL Server if you lowered the isolation level to do dirty-reads, you would get the values that user2 updated in users1's query. This isn't isolated according to the ACID properties.

Am I still wrong?

Jeff

Jeff
Friday, February 28, 2003

Philo wrote, "And I have never, ever, ever understood the "multi platform" argument, either for Oracle or Java - do companies really run around changing their platforms every few years?"

In the situations I've been in, the argument has not been for changing platforms; the argument has been in running and supporting many platforms simultaneously.

Example:  In my last company, we were writing an enterprise-level client/server application to be used by developers at large companies.  The customers would run their own servers.

Problem:  Some shops run Windows, some run Solaris, some run plain Unix, etc.

Result:  We had to pick a database that we knew we could implement on a lot of platforms, and a development platform that we knew we could implement on a lot of platforms.  Thus, we actually went with an Oracle database and Java clients.

Without multi-platform, we never could have developed that application.

Brent P. Newhall
Friday, February 28, 2003

My take on this:

Oracle is, IMNSHO, a complete, well thought out database management system.. PL/SQL is more of a programming language than T-SQL is, and Oracle seems interested in continually updating the language, as opposed to MS-SQL server, where MS seems to have some confusion about T-SQL vs VBScript)

Oracle, unfortuately, has a deserved reputation for being difficult to install and administer. MS-SQL server beats Oracle hands down on this, you can get off the ground and started with SQL server much faster (the interfaces are consistent, they arent god awful Java/Swing trash)

Price wise, I have had clients switch from Oracle to SQL-server simply because Oracle is too expensive for them. If all you need is some place to store your data, and simple queries (ie: if middleware does most of your heavy lifting), then use SQL server or even one of the free database systems (MySQL, Postgres come to mind)

Simply put, if you want a cheap database system, with modest storage requirements that ONLY works on Windows (and is unlikely to migrate to another OS in the near future) go MS-SQL server.. for that price, and for experienced windows people, it is easy to install and administer. (I wont mention Slammer or any other viruses associated with it, because I think Oracle has gotten lucky)

If you have large data storage requirements, or if a lot of code and/or business logic will be in the database, go Oracle.. Its expensive, but for most people the price tag is worth it. Its reliable, well known (lots of forums to learn things from, for example). Oracle is like Unix, though.. be prepared to run through some console windows, tweak settings and do stuff like that (but experienced Oracle DBAs arent hard to find)

They pay me to do Oracle and I like it
Monday, March 03, 2003

In terms of the multi-platform argument...

One of my J2EE projects was developed and tested on Windows and Linux (cheap hardware), initially ran on HP-UX but then was moved to AIX.

My client got a SWEET deal from IBM and they even bought the HP hardware from them.

That is 4 OS's - one code base (although AIX had one minor jdbc issue we worked around). Approx half a million lines of code. Not too shabby....if only I could've gotten Solaris in the mix somehow...

And I'm not a java bigot - I'm doing a .net project and I'm digging it.

AEB
Tuesday, March 04, 2003

I am doing my final project (dissertaion).

Compare and contrast Oracle server?

please e-mail: u0117266@yahoo.co.uk

barry
Saturday, February 21, 2004

www.autobase.com
Oracle application of MySQL?

Willy DaLE
Tuesday, February 24, 2004

Why ORACLE is difficult to use with web application?

1.    If web application has to access the data from ORACLE it requires the Oracle Web Listener to enable users to use Web Browsers to access HTML pages (static content) and data from Oracle databases (dynamic content). This is in addition to IIS.

2.    Oracle is not natural component of web-based application. ORACLE needs additional components like to enable it to work along with web application. ORACLE uses Cartridges or plug-in's to run the various codes written in PL/SQL, Java applets, Perl to extract the data from the database. This plug-ins for PL/SQL is called as OWA (Oracle Web Agent) and is addition to PL/SQL Server Pages (PSP).  MS SQL dose not require such plug-ins as ASPs directly extracts data from MS SQL.

3.    With ORACLE working with web application the record can not be locked.

4.    The designer which is a common client with ORACLE cannot be used it only generates an applications that can do only Insert, Update and Delete operations and generates JavaScript (NOT JAVA!) code to do client side validation.

5.    ORACLE dose not store the passwords in encrypted format.

6.    ORACLE web listener has to be physically configured with the mapping of the application directory every time when new application is launched or address of the application changes.

CONCLUSION: If use ORACLE in web application it requires more component servers and is going to increase the processing time of the application compared

Aneesh Kotwal
Sunday, August 22, 2004

*  Recent Topics

*  Fog Creek Home