Why Oracle? 15

[Mongr1l]

Hello. I'm an MS SQL 2000 developer who was recently asked the merits of switching to Oracle.

Apparently, my boss got a bug in his ear about the beauty that is Oracle.

Not being an Oracle developer, my concern is understandable. Basically, what my boss is really asking me is if I wouldn't mind learning an entirely different platform. I guess the alternative would be to hire an Oracle developer....

So... my question is this: Why all the fuss? I mean, what can Oracle do that can't be done in MS SQL 2000 or MS SQL 2005?

Keep in mind that MS SQL 2005 now comes with a great ETL package that include BI studio. I mean, honestly, what can possibly compare to that?

- mongril

 

[djj55]

Good question. I do both Oracle and MS SQL (2000) and they have some differences but to change??? Not being a DBA in either I can say that if you can do one the other should not be a big problem.
djj

 

[SQLSister]

ORacle and SQL Server are absolutely comparable in what they can do. The only reason to migrate an existing system to Oracle is if the company is moving to a single database standard and they selected Oracle because they had more Oracle than SQL Server databases. Other wise it is just a waste of time and money to convert the databases and increased lieklihood of a period of time when unexpected errors creep in due to differnces in the SQL code. A formal cost benefit analysis should be done in this case to show how much it will cost to move the system and the benefits gained by moving it. once you quantify the real cost in terms of hours and user problems and systemdown time and software/hardware costs, it will show that this is a poor idea.

Questions about posting. See faq183-874
Click here to help with Hurricane Relief

 

[SQLSister]

Oh yeah, I mean to add that you personally should have little difficulty learning Oracle (there are books with the T_SQl and Oracle SQl version of teh same code inthem that help in converting.) as the concepts are simliar. I understand taht Oracle is more time-intensive to administer but that could have hcnaged since the last time I looked seriously at Oracle whcih was several years ago.

Questions about posting. See faq183-874
Click here to help with Hurricane Relief

 

[Gooser]

Let me find my soap-box...

Oh, there it is!

In my humble opinion, Oracle is the great big lie.

I recently separated from the US Air Force, where I was--amongst other things--a dba and application developer (in the units I was in while serving a dba did everything database except purchase hardware.) Nowhere is the Oracle lie perpetrated worse, [probably,] than the Air Force. Oracle, in their marketing genius, sold a blanket license to the USAF so that the DBMS became 'free' to any unit that wished to use it. However, in total cost of ownership (TCO) I believe it couldn't even come close to SQL Server.

As a dba in the Air Force I had the opportunity-to/challenge-of training new Airmen to be dba's. In a few weeks, I could get a reasonably smart person spun-up to where they could perform most tasks [if properly supervised] in a MS SQL Server (7.0 & 2000)/Windows 2000 environment. The same person, to learn what needed to be done on a daily basis in a Oracle/Unix [Linux] environment could take months, and even then, most wouldn't be nearly as proficient as the MS SQL Server dba.

Here's why:
-People these days, especially young people, grew up with computers and the Windows environment. If you have even a vague idea of what you need to do, then you have a good idea of what to click on and where to go in the menu structure to find the command you are looking for. Whereas, in Oracle/Unix you have a command line staring at you, telling you nothing. Just a blinking cursor, dancing, laughing at you, mocking your very existence, while you sit there and try to think of a command to type in.
-Don't even get me started on vi or any of the other hurdles Unix has to offer.
-MS SQL Server has an awsome, built-in GUI/IDE for developing your code, look at time-saving functions just in the Object Browser.
-MS SQL Server makes all of the secondary and tertiary tasks of database maintenance easy and interactive--even automatic--so that the dba can concentrate on what really matters in good database practices, and that is modeling and writing good stored procedures.
-Unix geeks will tell you things like, "Unix is the most-stable operating system ever!" and "Oracle never crashes." To this I say, BS. I have worked extensively on both types of systems, and if well-maintained, either can function just as well as the other. In fact, I have seen MS SQL Server systems that ONLY went down when the power went out, and I've seen Oracle systems that if you sneezed on them wrong, they would quit working properly.
-Unix geeks will tell you, "vi can do anything Word can do"... sure all you have to do is memorize a bunch of non-mnemonic commands and remember what state you are in at all times and it's super-effiecient. Well if you use it all-day every day, that's great. But some of us aren't Unix geeks and don't write 50 pages of Unix scripts each night, at home.
-The amount of money you'll spend on training for MS SQL Server, vs the amount of money you'll spend training for Oracle/Unix, is way less. That's because there is less to learn because most people already know Windows-based software interfaces.
-If I had a dollar for every time I heard a Unix geek tell me, "Oh, that works in my shell...why don't you use my shell?" I'll tell you why, because 90% of everything else I do doesn't work in your shell.
-I could go on and on with this type of material, but I do have some work I need to get done today...made easier by MS SQL Server.

With going-on 7 years experience in all this database mumbo-jumbo, my expert-opinion is that Oracle is better at marketing than they are at making a product that is dba-friendly, Oracle's purported stability advantages are a myth, training is more costly, and the interface is more ugly.

So, in three-words, "Use SQL Server!"

v/r
Gooser

"Why do today
that which may not need to be done tomorrow?" --me

 

[Mongr1l]

That has got to be the best answer to a two word question ever.

Thanks, Gooser.

You get a star for that one.

- mongril

 

[Gooser]

That's one thing in all of this I feel passionately about.

What a waste of taxpayers' money! Think about how many dba's there are in just the Air Force, then think about the difference in training dollars (we're talking probably about a $20K per-person difference, just to get a reasonably well-trained late-junior/early-senior dba--of course the $20K is a WAG, but probably not too far off.) You may be able to Google and find an independent study comparing TCO of the two. Not to mention the Sun Equipment! Jeez, have you ever priced a Sun Monitor!? It's stupid. Meanwhile, there are hungry kids, and soldiers without proper body-armor, you know?

There I go ranting again...

v/r
Gooser

 

[mrdenny]

Oracle is a nightmare (I've been a production DBA and developer for both Oracle and MS SQL).

The native Oracle tools are a joke. The first thing that any new Oracle DBA or developer will ask when they start at a company is where can I get a copy of TOAD (

http://www.quest.com)

from? This is because the Oracle tools are such crap that someone else had to write a management tool for the database. The native tools are all java, and we all know how well a large java app running on a Windows desktop works.

There are 3 languages that you need to know in Oracle PL/SQL, SQL Plus, and SQL. They are not interchangable, and you have to know where each language needs to be used, and how to switch to the other language(s).

Oracle is not more stable that MS SQL. It's just not, I to have seen MS SQL boxes stay up for months while Oracle servers needed to have Oracle restarted on a regular basis.

In Oracle if you are running a large query it can be halted because the redo log is full. Not the rollback log, the redo log. WTF???

Many people say that Oracle is the big work horse, and that it can process much more data faster that SQL Server can. When you ask them what kind of hardware is running the Oracle server you'll usually get back a response something like it's a 16 processor server with 36 Gigs of RAM, and hundreds of Gigs or storage spread out accross 50 disks. Of course that server is going to rock. If you took that same server and installed Windows on it, and put SQL 2000 Enterprise or SQL 2005 Enterprise that SQL Server would rock as well. People need to learn to start compaining SQL and Oracle on like hardware, not having Oracle on kick a** hardware and SQL on a little Dual Chip server with 2 Gigs or ram.

Oracle licensing is a nightmare. A couple of years ago Oracle had a raod show with a 4-6 hour semminar to explain the new licensing model. It's that complex. To break it down you pay x per processor. If it's a multi-core processor you pay x*.75 per core of that processor. SQL's licensing while not the easiest thing to figure out is fairly straight forward. If you go with CALs you pay x for the server and y per cal. If you go with CPU licensing you pay z per physical CPU with no extra cost for additional cores or virtual CPUs (hyperthreading).

(I don't know if this next one is still valid.)
You can create a table using a reserved word and Oracle will take it and create the table (SELECT for example). You can query the table, you can insert, update and delete data from the table. However if you try to put that table in as a subquery the Oracle engine will dump. But don't worry there are thousands of reserved words and there is no compete list of them published by Oracle.

--Works Fine
SELECT *
FROM [SELECT];
--Core Dumps the system
SELECT *
FROM TABLE1
WHERE TABLE1.COL3 IN (SELECT COL2 FROM [SELECT]);

Oracle DBAs are more expensive because of all the hell they have to go through to get the system running and to keep it running.

There are others but I can't think so them right now.

Denny
MCSA (2003) / MCDBA (SQL 2000) / MCTS (SQL 2005) / MCITP Database Administrator (SQL 2005)

--Anything is possible. All it takes is a little research. (Me)

http://www.mrdenny.com

 

[SQLSister]

I'm serious, write a formal cost-benefit analysis, Esitimate the number of hours to convert the code and the database structures and import thte data, estimate the differnce inthe number of necessary dbas and the differnce in their salary costs (oracle dbas are typically paid more), estimate the retraining costs and the cost of the servers to put Oracle on (you will want a separate development serve just for Oracle to do the conversion and proably separate production servers as well.)
Then pull data to compare the speed on simliar equipment to show howm uch or little efficency improvement you will get. Don;t forget the cost of the liscenses. IOnce you have all this hard data together ina formal written document, send it toyour boss (if need be copy others inteh organization who are senior decision makers). This will be the last you will hear about migrating the data to Oracle if you do this right.

Questions about posting. See faq183-874
Click here to help with Hurricane Relief

 

[Mongr1l]

This thread is definitely a keeper. I don't know how many times I've heard the Oracle/MsSQL question raised. However, until now, I haven't been able to comment on it because I didn't know anything about Oracle. The fact that it is a command line platform is enough to scare me off.

We had this idiot programmer at my last job that swore by Oracle and almost had our idiot boss talked into it. The reason the idiot programmer wanted Oracle was because... his buddy was an Oracle developer.

That was pretty much his reasoning.

And that's why, after 7.5 years there, I don't work there anymore.

You guys have given me some excellent ammunition.

However, I definitely would welcome more on the subject.

- mongril

 

[gmmastros]

In all fairness, I recommend you post a similar question in one of the Oracle forums. I suspect you'll get a different response from the Oracle forum.

I'm not suggesting that you actually switch. I am suggesting that you may want to hear a different view point.

-George

Strong and bitter words indicate a weak cause. - Fortune cookie wisdom

 

[Mongr1l]

Actually, that's a fair suggestion.

I'll try it, just out of curiosity.

Thanks, GM.

- mongril

 

[SQLDenis]

Gentle[wo]men start the war

Denis The SQL Menace
SQL blog:

http://sqlservercode.blogspot.com/

Personal Blog:

http://otherthingsnow.blogspot.com/

 

[Gooser]

Oh sure, the Unix geeks will say,

"The Oracle knows all, The Oracle is omniscient, The Oracle is Omnipotent! All bow down before the mighty and expensive Oracle!"

But they are the same ones who will support the idea that a free, unsupported OS is a "good idea" in an enterprise or--worse yet--mission critical system.

Sure, if you want to build a linux box at home that uses some homegrowngrassroots flavor of linux that is 5% better than Windows, great. But try finding a robust email client for your email server that is both user-friendly and plays nice with the other boxes around the office.

Our local village ididot...I mean...unix-geek-contractor-troll-dinosaur brings me a database script on his thumb drive that he's used 7zip, a unix-geek freeware to zip up. Well, now I have to download 7zip--a freeware--onto my desktop at work, not having any idea who the author is, what the software does, or whether it is a trojan, spyware, malware, etc. Tell me, my friends, what in the world is wrong with WinZIP? ...or PKZIP, both apps that have been around forever and ever [amen]? Or jeez, you could even use built-in compressed folders in Windows. But to get a database script, all of 383 KILO-bytes onto a thumb-drive of 1 GIGA-byte, this guy uses 7-zip because it is 5% better, or whatever his dumb argument was. So, I have to go Google this garbageapp, download it, install it, and then un-7-zip the file which would have fit on a damn floppy to begin with. Unix geeks are dumb!

So, go post your question on an Oracle forum. But let they buyer beware! They will sell you a load of bull-droppings for as much as they can squeeze out of you.

SQL Server Rules!

v/r

Gooser

 

[Mongr1l]

By the way, I posted this question on an Oracle forum (

http://www.orafaq.com)

at 2:13 pm.

It's 4:22 pm now.

No replies yet... except the sound of chirping crickets....


- mongril

 

[gmmastros]

Try posting in one of the oracle forums here at tek-tips. forum1177

-George

Strong and bitter words indicate a weak cause. - Fortune cookie wisdom

 

[SQLSister]

Frankly I think the question goes the other way too. I think most of us prefer SQL Server, but if an Oracle dba asked me if he should migrate his existing enterprise system to SQl Server becasue it is a better database, I would aslo advise the cost benefit analysis first and I would guarantee that the benefits of swirtching over would not come close to the costs of the switch and the possible downsides in most cases. Enterprise level databses are just too complex to move to another platform most of the time; heck many data people don;t even want to move to newer version of their existing database for the same reason - they will likekly spend weeks aor months of time doing the conversion and at the end get no fetures that significantly impact what they currently do with their databse. That's why there are SQL Server 6.5 database still out there. And in this case most of the old code would work in the newer environment.

Questions about posting. See faq183-874
Click here to help with Hurricane Relief

 

[Gooser]

Oh, jeez, do my words fit George's quote, or does this fit the exeption-to-every-rule corollary?



v/r

Gooser

 

[chrissie1]

"The chrissie1 knows all, The chrissie1 is omniscient, The chrissie1 is Omnipotent! All bow down before the mighty and expensive chrissie1!"

That's better.

expensive is a good thing BTW.

Christiaan Baes
Belgium

"My new site" - Me

 

[mrdenny]

For all my rantings above I do agree with SQL Sister. A good solid CBA will definitely help make figuring out what to do much easier and more sane.

Denny
MCSA (2003) / MCDBA (SQL 2000) / MCTS (SQL 2005) / MCITP Database Administrator (SQL 2005)

--Anything is possible. All it takes is a little research. (Me)

http://www.mrdenny.com