Oracle is typically used for the 'HUGE' databases. SQL Server has had limitations with these same databases running into processing limitations. Can someone give me a realistic comparison and give me some benchmark info? Or point to where I could find that info.
ex. terabyte size in both programs, where does one leave off (size) and the other begin.
thx,
Kat
here are some resources that may be helpful to you:
Web page with SQL Server vs. Oracle comparison information
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/compare/oracle/default.mspx
Hi Michael,
I believe the databases that I am referring to are in excess of 50 TBs... going into the 'Petabyte' range at a particular company. I'm not sure petabyte is the next size but it is the size above TB. Have you heard of any of those with SQL Server?
There are at times some big differences in how Oracle works compared to SQL Server, some of these differences benefit certain groups of users while they hinder other users. You cannot use database size as a measure of suitability.
I found the following 2 articles: one by MS, another by Oracle.
Both are comparing SQL Server 2000 and Oracle 9i.
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/compare/sap/sapad.mspx
http://www.oracle.com/technology/tech/windows/o9i-vs-ss2k-TCO.pdf
I am not a DBA... So, from a dummy's (a developer's) point of view, this fight ended in a draw.
I guess (again, I'm a .NET developer, not a DBA), there are only 2 factors that are to be taken into consideration when choosing between the 2 RDBMSs:
1. The company's management's preferences (always the 1st one, but the worst as well).
2. The company's environment: (a) you can't use SQL Server on HP-UX, for example; (b) each product works best of all with other products by the same manufacturer, including OS, dev tools, other apps, and the company's (user's) custom apps.
Actually, those two points are more accurate than you would think. The first one isn't necessarily bad. The plain and simple fact is that each one of the core DBMSes on the market (Microsoft SQL Server, Oracle, and DB2) can handle any application currently in existence. The delineation in many cases is what you get in the box and how much you are paying, for example, you get a full blown data mining and OLAP engine in the box with SQL Server whereas you have to pay for 3rd party tools with the others. The second point is dead-on, but missing one factor, skill set. If all of the DBAs in your company know Oracle, you would need a really good reason to deploy a SQL Server simply because the skill set isn't there to manage it. The same goes with deploying Oracle into a SQL Server only environment.
As far as a previous question goes, NO ONE has a database that is reaching into the petabyte range. NO ONE. If someone tells you they have a petabyte level database, they are full of it. Only a tiny fraction of organizations even have a petabyte of storage, let alone having a petabyte of data under storage. I know of exactly 2 organizations with more than a petabyte of data under storage, but that is spread out across tens of thousands of databases, mail servers, file servers, and a host of other places. The facility required to simply plug in 1 petabyte of storage is prohibitive to all but a few organizations. Think about it. If you did this with 500 GB driives, which you probably wouldn't find in a data center like this anyway, you would need 2097 of these drives to just have 1 petabyte of raw storage. You certainly wouldn't store a petabyte database on simple unprotected storage. So, if you went with the cheapest RAID solution and just mirrored everything, you are now up to 4194 disks. The largest EMC array on the market can accomodate 2400 disks. So, you would need two of the largest arrays that EMC can hand you, completely filled with the largest disks available on the market to accomodate 1 petabyte of storage with minimal redundancy. If you go with a typical SAN configuration for databases with a very large amount of data, you would typically be looking at 8388 disks and 4 of these EMC Symmetrix solutions to house them all. Then you'd have a second task of trying to find a machine where you could put enough HBAs in the chassis to hook up to something that large, particularly considering failover options (i.e. you would need at least 8 HBAs - 2 per Symmetrix) I could go on and on and on. Is it possible, yes. Is it feasible given current hardware, not really. I haven't even gotten into just how you would manage a single backup of a petabyte sized database, manage indexing, retrieving data, etc.
The largest database in one of the organizations that I know is currently topping 76 TB. I don't know of anyone who has topped 100 TB in a single database on ANY platform, let alone having a database 10.24 times that size.
I think this conversation is enlightening to say the least. Aside from points one and two I find that perception rules the roost. I'm a sql dba learning Oracle because we have both at our hospital. It appears that Oracle made great enroads when SQL Server dropped the ball during the dotcom erra because it couldn't handle greater storage requirements then. Ever since that bloody nose, SQL Server has been given the perception that it "can't handle" the storage. Yet I've talked with Oracle and SQL DBAs alike and we're a little confused as to how one product really beats the other especially storage wise. Oh, and I guess there's, the company Teradata that's supposed to handle really big databases--but I heard they're not doing so well as a company. Turns out the SQL Server 2005 can handle a theoretical limit of 1 million Terabytes--it's in the books on line. On top of that, SQL 2000 also handles this 1 million terabyte limit. So it's a matter of hardware at this point--not the software.
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143432.aspx
BTW, we've been working with SQL 2000 databases here that easily handle a terabyte.
While I like Oracle and am going to learn more about it, I believe Oracle has been resting on their laurels with their database platform. Sure, their core is great, competent DBAs are available, but their interface stinks. Microsoft is going to spin circles around them with their interface and all the addtional functionality Microsoft SQL Server provides along with ease of use.. Oracle better be glad they bought Peoplesoft.
