Relational Databases - Oracle or SQL*Server ?

[Dagon]

After many years of working mostly with Oracle, I've been offered a 1-year contract working with SQL*Server. It would mean quitting my existing contract (which I don't mind, because it's rubbish). However, I have misgivings over whether I want to change technologies or not.

Although I'd prefer to stay with Oracle for reasons of continuity and familiarity, my overriding imperative is to go for what seems like the best commercial prospect in the long term. Does anyone have any feel for what the better option would be ?

 

[Welshbird]

I've moved the other way, and it feels like I'm beginning to use a 'professional' platform, whereas MS*SQL always felt a bit more like grown-up Access.

In terms of how the wder world sees it though; Oracle is certainly more expensive to run and administer - MS*SQL is much easier to learn to do that, and also is available via a GUI so is cheaper to run.

You may well REALLY miss analysis functions if you use them too!

That is only a wee thought from my own point of view - I'm sure others will know much more than I.

Fee

The question should be [red]Is it worth trying to do?[/red] not [blue] Can it be done?[/blue]

 

[MasterRacker]

SQL Server is a good product and has a large market. SQL's market is broader than Oracle's (AFAIK) because SQL Express/MSDE allsow SQL technology to sacle all the way down to desktop applications.

I don't see how you could possibly hurt yourself learning another product. Are they going to provide you some training to help you convert?

You might also post in the General Database Discussion forum for info on the technical merits and futures of both products from those who use both.

_____
Jeff
[small][purple]It's never too early to begin preparing for [/purple]International Talk Like a Pirate Day
"The software I buy sucks, The software I write sucks. It's time to give up and have a beer..." - Me[/small]

 

[AlexCuse]

Man I typed up this long reply, then TT crashed, as it tends to do. I hope I was able to recapture it all.

I work primarily with SQL Server, and I have never had the feeling that it was 'grown up Access'. I started using(and still use) 2000 though , so I'm not sure what past versions were like.

I think you should go for it, because if you use Oracle you will most likely have no problem picking it up, and it never hurts to have another technology on your resume, and this pair would be especially good as there are quite a few people out there who struggle to make Oracle and SQL Server 'play nice'. After having worked with both fairly extensively, I think this would be much easier for you.

I also think that SQL Server is catching up to Oracle faster than anyone at Oracle would care to admit, in terms of stability and scalability. Taking this into account, and the rather large price difference, you may be right about it being the best long term commercial prospect.
(note I am not trying to start an Oracle vs. SQL Server flame war here. I actually plan on downloading Oracle's freebie product when I get the internet at home, so I can learn to use it a little bit.)

What would your contract entail, would it be DBA work, programming, reporting....?

Good Luck with your decision,

Alex

Ignorance of certain subjects is a great part of wisdom

 

[Dagon]

The contract involves using another product called Informatica PowerCenter. I've been using this for a few years and, although I'm not tremendously keen on it, it has helped me get quite a few contracts. In theory, most of the work would be writing Informatica mappings, so there shouldn't be that much direct use of the database. But I've never seen myself as a straight Informatica developer and have always used a lot of other tools like PL/SQL and SQL*Loader.

 

[flapeyre]

We are currently migrating our homegrown AR package to a specialized package for our industry. This new package uses .net and SQL Server. At the same time, our financials are going Oracle (but that's not my area of responsibility). I start training on SQL tomorrow.

Coming as I do from the IBM i5 (formerly iSeries, before that, AS/400), it will require a new way of thinking for me. But, hey, I learned the AS/400 in short order way back when. I guess I'll be able to compare them (Oracle & SQL Server) side-by-side. I am a little leery about the reliability issue; anyone who has ever worked on the 400 knows you have to practically beat it with a stick to destroy it. But some of these mish-mash Windows servers will lock up if you look at them funny.

Feles mala! Cur cista non uteris? Stramentum novum in ea posui!

 

[SQLSister]

Our SQl Server server is always up we have well over 99% uptime. In fact the only time I can think of that was it down inthe last year was when we swapped out the server for a newer faster one.

As far as a comparison between the two, i think a great deal of a person's impression depends on how well the database(s) you are using on each are designed and the knowldege level of the dbas. I worked with an Oracle system tha was just atrocious becasue it was a poorly designed commeercial product and some SQl servers which just fly and some not so much. All came down to how well the database was designed for performance.

Personally it can't hurt you to have both Oracle and SQL Server in your toolkit. Especially if it is a better job than your current one.

Questions about posting. See faq183-874

 

[hilfy]

The major differences that I've found between Oracle and SQL Server have to do with their record locking methodology - SQL Server locks records when you read them and Oracle only when you write to them. With SQL Server, this can cause problems in a system where many users may be viewing the same data at the same time and you have to program around the issue (I think the latest version has some options that help resolve this issue, but I haven't played with it.)

There are syntax differences in T-SQL and PL/SQL.

Beyond that, as far as using the database (as opposed to DB admin) I believe they're pretty comparable at this point.

As others have mentioned, it could be a good thing to have experience in both.

-Dell

A computer only does what you actually told it to do - not what you thought you told it to do.

 

[Dagon]

It's probably a bad decision, but I decided to turn it down. The timing was quite awkward: I'd have to give a month's notice on my current contract and I'm about to go on holiday for three weeks. Also, it meant working in London and I'm trying to stay away from there.

 

[IT4EVR]

I've worked with both Oracle and SQL Server and I feel Oracle provides a more robust environment but that SQL Server provides a more user-friendly environment.

I'd say PL/SQL offers more to the programmer than T-SQL. SQL Server's Reporting and Analysis Services offer much more than Oracle. Both are fantastic products, but if not implemented properly are worthless. I wouldn't say one was better than the other but that each has it's own strengths.

The Federal Government especially adores Oracle and I find that job sites list more Oracle jobs than SQL Server. However SQL Server seems to be gaining ground.

Learn both but become an expert or maintain an expert status on one. Sandbagging yourself in one technology will only hurt you.