As for data performance. Oracle probably does beat SQL 6.5. That is not the case with SQL 7.0. SQL 7.0 is a VERY different product from 6.5. It uses hash joins, and distributed queries and not to mention it now has Rushmore incorporated in it. It's memory management and file management are now dynamic and much more efficient. It has switched from a MRU algorithm to a clock algorithm for memory cache which is much more efficient.
As for it's scalability, MS has a tera-server database on the web now. It's a database of about 2~3 terabytes of satellite images. Using it's new file based grouping you can take advantage of what data is stored on what disk subsystem. Thus taking full advantage of the different RAID configurations for optimal performance depending on the data stored (images, logs, read-only, OLTP, etc).
There are a number of other improvements that effect speed and scalability, like the new indexing structures and removal of devices causing the double linked lists to go away. As for setup and maintainability, I could teach my cat how tow setup SQL 7.0 <g>. I would like to see anyone setup (properly and optimally) Oracle in under an hour. Let's not forget that it also runs on Win 9.x now also. Merge replication, DTS, and built in OLAP. The list goes on and on and on and .....

BTW - Say HI to Bill, Debbie, Silas, Dave and the rest of the gang at LIS for me.


>John,
>
>What about performance? I thought that Oracle has a faster data engine than SQL Server (but slower than VFP, no doubt). I think that Oracle is also more scalable and internet-ready (especially with Oracle 8i) as well as suitable for ANY platform. I agree it's probably more of a pain to maintain because of all the OS stuff you have to do and undoubtedly more expensive.
>
>-JT