Re: DBAs:Databases 1:10 (Oracle) 1:31 (SQL Server)
- From: Grant Allen <gxallen@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: Oracle-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 00:05:29 +1000
Gene Sais wrote:
I have to disagree, what SQLserver calls a database is just another
schema in Oracle. It all has to do with definition of what a database is.
Yes, we can all play semantic games with the definition of schemas and
databases. To emphasise my point, everything that can be achieved with
a schema in Oracle can be achieved with a schema in SQL Server
(ownership, authorisation privs, etc.). Thus, the equivalence. Certain
things that a database provides in SQL Server cannot be provided by a
schema in Oracle (e.g. checkpoint log behaviour). Thus, they are not
equivalent (and yes, there's more than one difference :-)).
But this isn't a new argument - it's has been repeated here and on
c.d.o.s on Usenet for years, and I'm sure it will crop up again long
after I'm tired of it. We can just agree to disagree.
MS calls their temp space a database 'tempdb' and 'masterdb' would
be similar to Oracle's Sys schema.
Yes, I'd agree with tempdb being just a convenient name for the temp
tablespace and/or temp segment equivalent. Masterdb equivalent to the
sys schema? Well, how about equivalent to the sys schema, the system
tablespace, the sysaux tablespace, half of the spfile/init.ora, and a
bunch of other things. Close ... but no cigar :-)
Ciao
Fuzzy
:-)
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
