Scot,

I think I already thanked you for the reply but I have another question. One of the issues that has been raised has to do with row-level and page-level locking with SQL Server. The person on the Oracle side of the fence has told me that the inability of SQL Server to handle row-level and page-level locking is one the reasons he is leaning to Oracle. Yet, in reading the documentation on SQL 6.5, it appeart that ". . . locking is now configurable between row-level and page-level, with automatic deadlock resolution. . ."

In your experience, is this really an issue or is the Oracle guy just grasping at straws here.

Thanks, AL


>I have some thoughts on this that may or may not help. First, a disclaimer: I only have experience with MS SQL Server 6.x. most of what I will say about Oracle is heresay, and should be taken as such until you can prove or disprove it....(s)
>
>SQL Server 6.5 is cheaper than Oracle. I've been told about some assinine upgrade fees and client licencing issues. I think a copy of SQL Server is under a thousand bucks and client licences are very reasonable. Also, if you want to do extra stuff like replication, I think you have to buy that seperately with Oracle. With SQL, you get everything.
>
>SQL Server ODBC drivers are more stable. To my knowledge, the only decent Oracle ODBC driver is supplied by a third party, and is is somewhat cludgey..... The main problem, I think, with this is Oracle likes to package everything together (GUI tools, etc.). If you go outside that realm (such as developing a front end in VFP) you will have more problems.
>
>I have heard both Oracle is more stable and SQL Server is more stable. Flip a coin, I guess (s). Both will have annoying bugs that you must constantly work around. I know I could mention a *ton* about SQL Server..... Data servers are a whole different game, and you will need someone to manage it full time; Period.
>
>You will get paid a ton more if you know Oracle than SQL server. Ads for Oracle DBA's with salaries around $90k are not uncommon. I know this varies from your concerns for the project, but.....(eg)
>
>I think the SQL management tools are better. Also, SQL Server 7.0 (aka sphinx) is due next year and is supposed to (I can't mention much about this) kick butt.
>
>The new version of Oracle (8?) is supposed to be much better than the previous.
>
>Someone mentioned that you should consider which one your DBA knows best. I both agree and disagree with this. I think you need to investigate all of the packages and figure out which one your company needs most while factoring in functionality, cost, etc. I have a friend in the industry who does a lot of pre-data modeling. Meaning he walks into companies and starts to model what they need. Then, when they talk to vendors, they have a definate advantage (the vendors seldom know what hit them as they never encounter many people who *really* know what they want and need. This takes out the marketing aspect and starts to talk about facts.).
>
>The moral is (I like to type? (s))..... I think the real answer is, it depends. This is not a small decision nor any easy one. All companies needs (and therefore, experiences) are different.
>
>HTH,
>Scot.