http://www.progstrat.com/research/ge...1rdbmscmcs.pdf

Anna C. Dent wrote:

> http://www.progstrat.com/research/ge...1rdbmscmcs.pdf

Clearly, their comparisons on the installation front didn't involve
having to create a user account, set kernel parameters, create
installation directory structure, integrate database and listener
startup into the /etc/rc.d script hierarchy and other such wonders of
the Linux world! No wonder the Oracle installation was 54% less complex
than SQL Server's... they missed all the good bits out!

Never mind that I would never assess a database on its ease of installation.

I was also slightly alarmed to read "SQL Server ... is manageable as far
as backup and recovery is concerned, but every operation needs to be
manually configured". Stone me... a database that requires someone who
knows what they are doing in terms of backup and recovery. Whatever next!

On page 18, they claimed to only use bundled software, yet have a note
that they used the Oracle Diagnostics and Tuning Pack (which costs extra).

Their 'create database' time savings over SQL Server appear largely to
have arisen by virtue of them selecting the 'General Database' template
in dbca and keeping all the defaults. Hardly a real-world test.

They allowed their new user to be granted the 'Connect' role by default
(big no-no). If they'd not done that and actually thought about what
privleges were needed to achieve certain tasks, I rather think their
timings might have changed. Quite a good example, too, I thought of how
some of Oracle's defaults are actually bad news, not time savers.

They allow the system to define their backup schedule, and hence record
a time of 0 seconds. Strange thing is, I'd rather like a say in when and
how frequently my valuable data gets backed up.

They compare flashback to before drop with a full-blown SQL Server
incomplete recovery, which seems to me a little unfair. (They might, for
example, have tested for 'user performs deranged DML' instead of 'user
drops table', and tested how long it would take the average DBA to get
the date format right for the flashback command!... They did go on to do
an erroneous transaction comparison, but proceded to cheat a little by
using the GUI to do the flashback having previously said the GUI and the
CLI were 50-50 in terms of functionality).

And I note their tuning tests were not of the 'this report takes 10
minutes currently. Make it run in 5' type, but were simply of test of
how easy it was to run the tuning wizard on each database.

And finally, I note the report was dated April 1st.

It's actually quite a good read overall, so thank you for the link. It
shows that anything can be conjured from statistics if you select the
right ones mindlessly enough. All the report finally proves, I think, is
that creating and managing a crappy, badly-designed, select-all-defaults
Oracle database is quicker than doing the same thing in SQL Server. I
wouldn't want to bet my career or house on that translating into
well-designed and -managed databases.

Regards from someone who rather likes Oracle, actually!
HJR

Hi Howard

well i always manage to read everything posted by you..Just wunderin
where did you pick up this gift for writing technical stuff with such
great style..you always make a interesting read..If i were larry i
would have made you write the whole oracle documentation :-)

regards
Hrishy

hrishy wrote:

> Hi Howard
>
> well i always manage to read everything posted by you..Just wunderin
> where did you pick up this gift for writing technical stuff with such
> great style..you always make a interesting read..If i were larry i
> would have made you write the whole oracle documentation :-)
>
> regards
> Hrishy

Shucks. Now I'm embarassed!

I blame my classical education (all that Herodotus and Virgil) and
reading too many Bill Bryson books (if you haven't read any of them, do.
Sheer brilliance. Notes from a Small Island is hilarious).

It is true too that in the early 1990's, I did indeed write lots (and
lots and lots!) of technical documentation for a software product. The
company's previous practice had been to let the developers do the
documentation, despite none of it ever making the slightest sense to
anyone but the developers. Maybe I just absorbed a bit of a skill in
being able to take developer-speak and turn it into something
approximating comprehensible English for the fare-paying customers.

I would have liked to have a go at the Oracle documentation. But I
wouldn't have got very far. I got told off by Oracle once for opening my
9i new features stuff with the line 'server manager is dead'. The
corporation and poetic licence don't quite go together, I think.

:-o
HJR

"Howard J. Rogers" <hjr@dizwell.com> wrote in message
news:40a18227$0$20347$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
> Anna C. Dent wrote:
>
> > http://www.progstrat.com/research/ge...1rdbmscmcs.pdf
>
> Clearly, their comparisons on the installation front didn't involve
> having to create a user account, set kernel parameters, create
> installation directory structure, integrate database and listener
> startup into the /etc/rc.d script hierarchy and other such wonders of
> the Linux world! No wonder the Oracle installation was 54% less complex
> than SQL Server's... they missed all the good bits out!

I assume that they tested both pieces of software on the same machine and
that would be a windows box.

>
> Never mind that I would never assess a database on its ease of
installation.

And if installation were really a worry you'd be automating the install
anyway

> Their 'create database' time savings over SQL Server appear largely to
> have arisen by virtue of them selecting the 'General Database' template
> in dbca and keeping all the defaults. Hardly a real-world test.

Oh I don't know. It's hardly an ideal test but real-world I think so.

> And I note their tuning tests were not of the 'this report takes 10
> minutes currently. Make it run in 5' type, but were simply of test of
> how easy it was to run the tuning wizard on each database.

! It is very difficult, but not entirely hopeless, to get the timing
information you need out of sqlserver to do this effectively. I suspect that
someone who knew what they were doing could perform this task in a shorter
time on 7.3.4 than you can on MSSQL2000

I'm also quite glad that they conclude that a just released software product
is better than a 4 year old one.

They don't make any mention at all of developers efficiency with the two
products, giving 2 equally experienced programmers a web shop type spec and
getting them to implement it, then comparing efficiency of implementation
and efficiency of the resulting app would be a highly interesting
experiment.


--
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
Audit Commission UK
http://www.niall.litchfield.dial.pipex.com/

Niall Litchfield wrote:

> "Howard J. Rogers" <hjr@dizwell.com> wrote in message
> news:40a18227$0$20347$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>
>>Anna C. Dent wrote:
>>
>>
>>>http://www.progstrat.com/research/ge...1rdbmscmcs.pdf
>>
>>Clearly, their comparisons on the installation front didn't involve
>>having to create a user account, set kernel parameters, create
>>installation directory structure, integrate database and listener
>>startup into the /etc/rc.d script hierarchy and other such wonders of
>>the Linux world! No wonder the Oracle installation was 54% less complex
>>than SQL Server's... they missed all the good bits out!
>
>
> I assume that they tested both pieces of software on the same machine and
> that would be a windows box.

Well, yes. I rather worked that one out (and rather hoped the
tongue-in-cheek nature of my comments would be self-evident and not need
spelling out).

>>Never mind that I would never assess a database on its ease of
>
> installation.
>
> And if installation were really a worry you'd be automating the install
> anyway
>
>
>>Their 'create database' time savings over SQL Server appear largely to
>>have arisen by virtue of them selecting the 'General Database' template
>>in dbca and keeping all the defaults. Hardly a real-world test.
>
>
> Oh I don't know. It's hardly an ideal test but real-world I think so.

I hope no-one puts a 'general database' template database into production.

>>And I note their tuning tests were not of the 'this report takes 10
>>minutes currently. Make it run in 5' type, but were simply of test of
>>how easy it was to run the tuning wizard on each database.
>
>
> ! It is very difficult, but not entirely hopeless, to get the timing
> information you need out of sqlserver to do this effectively. I suspect that
> someone who knew what they were doing could perform this task in a shorter
> time on 7.3.4 than you can on MSSQL2000

Well, I didn't say they would or wouldn't. Just that the test on both
products was actually merely "how easy can a user invoke a tuning
wizard", and not a real test of how easy it is to tune a SQL statement
properly. There wasn't even a stopwatch test to see which tuning wizard
did a better job or came up with better tuning suggestions.

> I'm also quite glad that they conclude that a just released software product
> is better than a 4 year old one.
>
> They don't make any mention at all of developers efficiency with the two
> products, giving 2 equally experienced programmers a web shop type spec and
> getting them to implement it, then comparing efficiency of implementation
> and efficiency of the resulting app would be a highly interesting
> experiment.

True.

Regards
HJR

>
> I blame my classical education (all that Herodotus and Virgil) and
> reading too many Bill Bryson books (if you haven't read any of them,
> do. Sheer brilliance. Notes from a Small Island is hilarious).


Funny you should mention Bill Bryson. Tom Kyte mentioned him recently in
one of his threads at asktom.oracle.com
(http://asktom.oracle.com/pls/ask/f?p...16873041382355,
- but not by name) how he liked "A Short History of Nearly Everything".
I just recently purchased it, but I haven't cracked it open yet. Maybe
tonight...

Thanks,
Tom G.

>
> I blame my classical education (all that Herodotus and Virgil) and
> reading too many Bill Bryson books (if you haven't read any of them,
> do. Sheer brilliance. Notes from a Small Island is hilarious).


Funny you should mention Bill Bryson. Tom Kyte mentioned him recently in
one of his threads at asktom.oracle.com
(http://asktom.oracle.com/pls/ask/f?p...16873041382355,
- but not by name) how he liked "A Short History of Nearly Everything".
I just recently purchased it, but I haven't cracked it open yet. Maybe
tonight...

Thanks,
Tom G.