RE: DBAs:Databases 1:10 (Oracle) 1:31 (SQL Server)
- From: "Zelli, Brian" <bzelli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <Oracle-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 09:36:26 -0400
As a SQL server and oracle DBA, the concept of schema's was introduced
in SQL Server 2005. I was just at a class where they said that they
want to make SQL Server more "oracle like"
ciao,
Brian
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Grant Allen
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 9:33 AM
To: Oracle-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: DBAs:Databases 1:10 (Oracle) 1:31 (SQL Server)
Gene Sais wrote:
> What Oracle calls a database is different from what SQLserver calls a
> database. SQLserver databases are equivalent to Oracle schema's.
Bzzzzt! Wrong (and not just you Gene - sorry to single you out). This
has not been the case for nearly a decade! It makes me laugh every time
someone states this, especially as I have no love for the M$ product.
SQL Server has *exactly* the same schema support as Oracle *as well as*
support for multiple databases hosted by a given instance. A more
accurate way of thinking of databases in SQL Server is as another
namespace level above schemas.
To keep this vaguely on topic, I wonder if the "number of databases"
count for SQL Server is artificially boosted by the fact that for every
instance a DBA manages, they can claim to be managing 5 or 6 databases
for nothing - master, msdb, tempdb, pubs/northwind/adventureworks.
Ciao
Fuzzy
:-)
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
