• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Sql server vs oracle   dbms comparison
 

Sql server vs oracle dbms comparison

on

  • 300 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
300
Views on SlideShare
300
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
7
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Sql server vs oracle   dbms comparison Sql server vs oracle dbms comparison Document Transcript

    • Microsoft SQL Server VS OracleTechnical StudySoftex Software HousePrepared by: Maged A. Reda, CEO of Softex Software House
    • Microsoft SQL Server VS ORACLE DBMS - Technical StudyExecutive summarySoftex Software is developing different business software systems such as Market Control ERP, ClinicsManager, and Sales Control CRM for more than a decade. Since the initial development of SoftexSolutions, The primary recommended Database for all Softex systems is built using Microsoft SQL Server.Microsoft SQL Server DBMS systems have been among the most stable, secured and reliable solutionsMicrosoft has ever built. Despite its reputation and despite it is being used more and more by manyenterprises worldwide, many of the Arab Decision makers, Technical consultants and even standardusers still think Oracle is better for their business as database than Microsoft SQL Server.This document is not about proving them wrong, but to explain why Oracle is not the suitable choice forover 95% of the business in the Arab world. This Document is a result of over 15 years of experience inthe development of Database related software systems and solutions.Why people believe Oracle is better?During the last 10 years, we met people all over the Arab world who were upgrading from smallsoftware systems to new larger systems because their business is growing. Most of them think that inorder to get a better system, it has to be very expensive, very hard to install and maintain and verysophisticated to use.According to hundreds of different analysis projects I have managed, which I believe only a couple ofthem can have more benefit implementing Oracle over SQL Server. When I asked most of the technicaldirectors I have met in these projects “Why do you need your DB to be Oracle in specific?” almost all ofthe people answered “Because it is better”. The next question was never answered by them “Why doyou think it is better for you?”Simply In order to evaluate which product is better for you in terms of Database systems; you shouldsimply consider the following factors.  Security  Scalability  Cost  Ease of Maintenance and administration  Performance  Reliability (Service Availability)  Needed hardware resources Page 2 of 9
    • Microsoft SQL Server VS ORACLE DBMS - Technical StudySecurity Ask any 10 qualified people to guess which of the major database platforms is the most secure andchances are at least half would say Oracle. That is incorrect.The correct answer is Microsoft’s SQL Server. In fact, the Oracle database has recorded the mostnumber of security vulnerabilities of any of the major database platforms over the last eight years (Nowis 2013) this is not a subjective statement. The data comes directly from the National Institute ofStandards and Technology.Since 2002, Microsoft’s SQL Server has compiled an enviable record. It is the most secure of any of themajor database platforms. SQL Server has recorded the fewest number of reported vulnerabilities —just 49 from 2002 through June 2010 — of any database. These statistics were compiled independentlyby the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the government agency that monitorssecurity vulnerabilities by technology, vendor, and product (see Exhibit 1). So far in 2010 and till the endof 2011, SQL Server has a perfect record — no security bugs have been recorded by NIST CVE.And SQL Server was the most secure database by a wide margin: Its closest competitor, MySQL (whichwas owned by Sun Microsystems until its January 2010 acquisition by Oracle) recorded 98 security flawsor twice as many as SQL Server. So in terms of Security, Officially Oracle is not the here in this Area, Microsoft SQL Server is far ahead of this.CostEverything is measured now in terms of benefits VS Cost, Organizations of all sizes tend to reduce theircosts. Simply Oracle Licensing model is around 5 times more expensive than Microsoft SQL ServerDatabase licensing modelSupport and administration fees for Oracle DBAs are by far more expensive according to universal payscale standards. According to www.payscale.com , Microsoft SQL Server DBA is worth 69,201 USD/yearversus 88,706 USD/year for Oracle DBA. This means SQL Server manpower is around 25.5% lessexpensive than Oracle.In order to state facts, here is the comparison for the licensing models of both SQL Server and ORACLEDBMS. Page 3 of 9
    • Microsoft SQL Server VS ORACLE DBMS - Technical Study Pricing Models of Microsoft SQL SERVER VS ORACLE DBMS2009 license cost of Oracle 11g Standard EditionPer Processor = $17,500 Support (22%) = $3,850Total (Per Processor) = $21,350 Total (4 Processors) = $85,4002009 license cost of SQL Server 2005 Standard EditionPer Processor = $5,999 Total (4 Processors) = $23,9962009 license cost / Cost RatioOracle to MSSQL = 2.562012: Computing-power-based license list price comparison(4-core x86 processor) Edition Oracle 11gR2 ( USD) SQL Server 2012 (USD) SQL Server Saving % Enterprise $95,000 $27,496 SQL Server saves 71% Standard $17,500 $7,172 SQL Server saves 59% Based on numbers from 2009 till 2012, Microsoft SQL Server is much more cost efficient than Oracle. Page 4 of 9
    • Microsoft SQL Server VS ORACLE DBMS - Technical StudyPerformance / needed Hardware ResourcesDatabase Systems or DBMS as experts like to describe them is always crazy about performance, simplydatabase is a way of retrieving very large amount of data in order to retrieve them (Query them) andshare useful information which consolidates huge records among hundreds and may be thousands ofusers in the same time. The only way of testing performance of different DBMS is by creating test casesand then benchmarking them on consistent hardware resources.To be honest, one of the main reasons Oracle is considered as a top performer over Microsoft SQLServer is because Typical Oracle DB systems is usually deployed on Unix Based Servers which is typicallyfaster than Microsoft Windows Servers. On the other hand if you decide to run Oracle on WindowsServer family, Microsoft SQL Server will be much faster because it is totally native with windowsOperating system. In Fact because Microsoft builds both Operating system (Windows server platform)and Database Engine, the performance of Microsoft SQL Server outclasses Oracle on almost anyscenario on windows server families.From a technical point of view and to be totally honest, Oracle Database performs slightly better whenthe database size is over a couple of hundreds terabytes. (1 Terabyte = 1000 Gigabytes). On the otherhand less than 1% of organizations, companies worldwide run a database with size over 1 Terabyte. So ifyour database size will reach 1 Terabyte in the next 5 years it might be valid to consider Oracle as youmay need it later. To make the image clearer, a standard store with an inventory of 20,000 items whorecord 10,000 transactions / day will reach 0.001 Terabyte in 1 year of daily operations.In face according to Benchmark performed by Journal of Computer Science and Research, SQL Serverhas the fastest execution time in average over a 2 GB Database file. (A Copy of such benchmark isincluded in the reference section). Page 5 of 9
    • Microsoft SQL Server VS ORACLE DBMS - Technical StudyAccording to the same Benchmark study, sql server scores better in CPU utilization than Oracle,surprisingly the lowest CPU consumption in the benchmark was scored by Access (Which is alsodeveloped by microsoft).Another benchmark in the same study also indicates microsoft SQL Server used less memory than Oracle10g Database engine. In short and according to several studies, SQL Server performs better than ORACLE in databases less than 100 Terabytes in size. Page 6 of 9
    • Microsoft SQL Server VS ORACLE DBMS - Technical StudyScalabilityScalability usually means to have the ability to grow and expand in both performance and data storagecapacity without losing existing investments or hitting a maximum capacity limit. Below is the exactspecification sheet of maximum capacity metrics of Microsoft SQL Server VS ORACLE DB.Maximum Database SizeSQL Server Enterprise Edition 524,272 Terabyte (1 Terabyte=1000 GB) Unlimited as per the DB engine but of course Limited by OperatingOracle 11g Enterprise Edition System Maximum file sizeMaximum Processers & Memory Utilization # of processors Maximum Memory utilization Unlimited to Operating System Unlimited to Operating SystemSQL Server Enterprise Edition maximum processor. maximum support. Unlimited to Operating System Unlimited to Operating SystemOracle 11g Enterprise Edition maximum processor. maximum support. Simple you will need oracle if one of your production databases is planned to hold more than 524,272 Terabyte of data anytime soon. Page 7 of 9
    • Microsoft SQL Server VS ORACLE DBMS - Technical StudyEase of maintenance and AdministrationOracle claims according to its own benchmark study that administration of their database is easier thanMicrosoft SQL Server administration task, Personally I believe this is a big scam but in order not to bebiased for SQL Server which we uses for our own products, I researched for multiple reviews on theinternet written by Expert DBA’s and one of the most reviews I like is the one from Wiki answers bySankar. This part is only useful for experienced IT Managers but I believe it is fair and that SQL Server istypically much more easy to administrate, backup , recover than oracle DB’s.Operating System knowledgeThe primary difference is with respect to platform dependency, SQL is basically limited to the Windowsplatform where as Oracle is operable on multiple platforms such as Windows, UNIX and Linux etc. Thismulti-platform compatibility of Oracle makes it a universal enterprise solution, which makes itmandatory for the Oracle DBA to be acquainted with the different platforms whereas the SQL DBA justneeds to be familiar with the windows platform.Clustering technology:Oracle is significantly ahead of its opponent when it comes to clustering technology, Oracle makes useof RAC technology which enables two instances to act on the same data in active-active configurations.Locking and concurrency:Oracle had a multi-version consistency model which means that "readers dont block writers and writersdont block readers." Microsoft SQL on the other hand has a very simple locking mechanism whichfollows the rule that "writers block readers and readers block writers."File system:Oracle includes IFS (Internet File System), Java integration; SQL is more of a pure standalone databasethat needs almost nothing than the OS to perform advanced functions including a detailed reporting andBI Engines.Replication:SQL Server provides a far more simple and flexible system for replication and synchronizing of datawhen compared to Oracle, it involves a set of technologies for copying and distributing data anddatabase objects from one database to another and then synchronizing between databases to maintainconsistency.Administration:SQL server GUI is simple and easy to work with whereas the Oracle server is not very user friendly asmost of it command line is based. Definitely SQL Server is more easy, just ask Mr. Google Page 8 of 9
    • Microsoft SQL Server VS ORACLE DBMS - Technical StudyReliability and DB availabilityIt is our traditional legacy over the last 15 years (since the release of SQL Server 2000 over windows 2KServer Family), that Oracle is more reliable than Microsoft SQL server. One of the main reasons this wastrue 15 years ago is that windows 2000 was really outclassed by UNIX and even Linux in many aspects.So since long ago it was an operating system fault and not the DB Fault, if you have installed oracle onWindows 2000 Server family, I doubt you can make it even nearly stable.But nowadays, regarding “Reliability”, they are also pretty much the same now. Although theOracle/UNIX installs have been traditionally much more reliable as we mentioned earlier, since SQL 2005and Windows Server 2003, MS has gotten pretty close to the same reliability. I think the biggest problemwith most MS shops is less-experienced resources tend to manage the servers. If you have a good UNIXadmin and a good MS Server admin, they are both pretty reliable. One of the bigger reliability issues onthe MS end is untrained resources tend to manage them because the tools and user-interfaces are sogood. You cannot blame the software for people mis-using it. If you have a good server admin and agood DBA (as you almost always have with Oracle) MSSQL is very reliable.ConclusionFrom a scientific and technical point of view, I personally believe Microsoft SQL server delivers much farbetter value for money for over 99% of business and organizations worldwide, it is not strange that weas Softexians (Who works in Softex Software House) appreciate such value, after all Softex most uniquevalue proposition is providing the best benefit (business added value) / Cost in the industry. It is not always better to purchase the most expensive product; better Value can be achieved using much more efficient yet professional products.Maged A. RedaCEOSoftex Software Housewww.softexsw.com Page 9 of 9