SQLServer suffers from the same "syndrome" as Visual Basic: it makes
the easiest parts of programming (in VB) or of administration
(SQLServer) easier. But the hard parts actually get much harder. So,
the experience of administering a large, production SQLServer2k db is
probably as nasty as maintaining/upgrading a large VB app.
One thing is that SQLServer doesn't give as much control as you can
expect, so when things like "why is this so slow" happens, life is much
harder. Of course, things really go bad when you have a very large
legacy VB code using SQLServer2k and everything is very slow and they
just call you to "optimize this" (where "this" can be legacy vb code,
db schema, sql, etc, etc).
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Leslie Tierstein
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 5:23 PM
To: oracle-l
Subject: SQL Server vs. Oracle
See: http://www.progstrat.com/research/gems/040401rdbmscmcs.pdf
The poster on the SQL Server list where I found this reference was
astonished that the report would find that 10g was easier to configure and
administer than SQL Server.
---------------------------------------------------------------- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com ---------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line. -- Archives are at //www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/ FAQ is at //www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html -----------------------------------------------------------------
