Upcoming SlideShare
SQL Server Vs Oracle DBMS Comparison
- 1. Microsoft SQL Server VS Oracle Technical Study Softex Software House Prepared by: Maged A. Reda, CEO of Softex Software House
- 2. Microsoft SQL Server VS ORACLE DBMS - Technical Study Page 2 of 9 Executive summary Softex Software is developing different business software systems such as Market Control ERP, Clinics Manager, and Sales Control CRM for more than a decade. Since the initial development of Softex Solutions, 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 solutions Microsoft has ever built. Despite its reputation and despite it is being used more and more by many enterprises worldwide, many of the Arab Decision makers, Technical consultants and even standard users 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 for over 95% of the business in the Arab world. This Document is a result of over 15 years of experience in the 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 small software systems to new larger systems because their business is growing. Most of them think that in order to get a better system, it has to be very expensive, very hard to install and maintain and very sophisticated to use. According to hundreds of different analysis projects I have managed, which I believe only a couple of them can have more benefit implementing Oracle over SQL Server. When I asked most of the technical directors I have met in these projects “Why do you need your DB to be Oracle in specific?” almost all of the people answered “Because it is better”. The next question was never answered by them “Why do you think it is better for you?” Simply In order to evaluate which product is better for you in terms of Database systems; you should simply consider the following factors. • Security • Cost • Performance • Needed hardware resources • Scalability • Ease of Maintenance and administration • Reliability (Service Availability)
- 3. Microsoft SQL Server VS ORACLE DBMS - Technical Study Page 3 of 9 Security Ask any 10 qualified people to guess which of the major database platforms is the most secure and chances 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 most number of security vulnerabilities of any of the major database platforms over the last eight years (Now is 2013) this is not a subjective statement. The data comes directly from the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Since 2002, Microsoft’s SQL Server has compiled an enviable record. It is the most secure of any of the major 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 independently by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the government agency that monitors security vulnerabilities by technology, vendor, and product (see Exhibit 1). So far in 2010 and till the end of 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 (which was owned by Sun Microsystems until its January 2010 acquisition by Oracle) recorded 98 security flaws or 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. Cost Everything is measured now in terms of benefits VS Cost, Organizations of all sizes tend to reduce their costs. Simply Oracle Licensing model is around 5 times more expensive than Microsoft SQL Server Database licensing model Support and administration fees for Oracle DBAs are by far more expensive according to universal pay scale standards. According to www.payscale.com , Microsoft SQL Server DBA is worth 69,201 USD/year versus 88,706 USD/year for Oracle DBA. This means SQL Server manpower is around 25.5% less expensive than Oracle. In order to state facts, here is the comparison for the licensing models of both SQL Server and ORACLE DBMS.
- 4. Microsoft SQL Server VS ORACLE DBMS - Technical Study Page 4 of 9 Pricing Models of Microsoft SQL SERVER VS ORACLE DBMS 2009 license cost of Oracle 11g Standard Edition Per Processor = $17,500 Support (22%) = $3,850 Total (Per Processor) = $21,350 Total (4 Processors) = $85,400 2009 license cost of SQL Server 2005 Standard Edition Per Processor = $5,999 Total (4 Processors) = $23,996 2009 license cost / Cost Ratio Oracle to MSSQL = 2.56 2012: 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.
- 5. Microsoft SQL Server VS ORACLE DBMS - Technical Study Page 5 of 9 Performance / needed Hardware Resources Database Systems or DBMS as experts like to describe them is always crazy about performance, simply database is a way of retrieving very large amount of data in order to retrieve them (Query them) and share useful information which consolidates huge records among hundreds and may be thousands of users in the same time. The only way of testing performance of different DBMS is by creating test cases and then benchmarking them on consistent hardware resources. To be honest, one of the main reasons Oracle is considered as a top performer over Microsoft SQL Server is because Typical Oracle DB systems is usually deployed on Unix Based Servers which is typically faster than Microsoft Windows Servers. On the other hand if you decide to run Oracle on Windows Server family, Microsoft SQL Server will be much faster because it is totally native with windows Operating 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 any scenario on windows server families. From a technical point of view and to be totally honest, Oracle Database performs slightly better when the database size is over a couple of hundreds terabytes. (1 Terabyte = 1000 Gigabytes). On the other hand less than 1% of organizations, companies worldwide run a database with size over 1 Terabyte. So if your database size will reach 1 Terabyte in the next 5 years it might be valid to consider Oracle as you may need it later. To make the image clearer, a standard store with an inventory of 20,000 items who record 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 Server has the fastest execution time in average over a 2 GB Database file. (A Copy of such benchmark is included in the reference section).
- 6. Microsoft SQL Server VS ORACLE DBMS - Technical Study Page 6 of 9 According 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 also developed by microsoft). Another benchmark in the same study also indicates microsoft SQL Server used less memory than Oracle 10g Database engine. In short and according to several studies, SQL Server performs better than ORACLE in databases less than 100 Terabytes in size.
- 7. Microsoft SQL Server VS ORACLE DBMS - Technical Study Page 7 of 9 Scalability Scalability usually means to have the ability to grow and expand in both performance and data storage capacity without losing existing investments or hitting a maximum capacity limit. Below is the exact specification sheet of maximum capacity metrics of Microsoft SQL Server VS ORACLE DB. Maximum Database Size SQL Server Enterprise Edition 524,272 Terabyte (1 Terabyte=1000 GB) Oracle 11g Enterprise Edition Unlimited as per the DB engine but of course Limited by Operating System Maximum file size Maximum Processers & Memory Utilization # of processors Maximum Memory utilization SQL Server Enterprise Edition Unlimited to Operating System maximum processor. Unlimited to Operating System maximum support. Oracle 11g Enterprise Edition Unlimited to Operating System maximum processor. Unlimited to Operating System 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.
- 8. Microsoft SQL Server VS ORACLE DBMS - Technical Study Page 8 of 9 Ease of maintenance and Administration Oracle claims according to its own benchmark study that administration of their database is easier than Microsoft SQL Server administration task, Personally I believe this is a big scam but in order not to be biased for SQL Server which we uses for our own products, I researched for multiple reviews on the internet written by Expert DBA’s and one of the most reviews I like is the one from Wiki answers by Sankar. This part is only useful for experienced IT Managers but I believe it is fair and that SQL Server is typically much more easy to administrate, backup , recover than oracle DB’s. Operating System knowledge The primary difference is with respect to platform dependency, SQL is basically limited to the Windows platform where as Oracle is operable on multiple platforms such as Windows, UNIX and Linux etc. This multi-platform compatibility of Oracle makes it a universal enterprise solution, which makes it mandatory for the Oracle DBA to be acquainted with the different platforms whereas the SQL DBA just needs to be familiar with the windows platform. Clustering technology: Oracle is significantly ahead of its opponent when it comes to clustering technology, Oracle makes use of 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 don't block writers and writers don't block readers." Microsoft SQL on the other hand has a very simple locking mechanism which follows 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 database that needs almost nothing than the OS to perform advanced functions including a detailed reporting and BI Engines. Replication: SQL Server provides a far more simple and flexible system for replication and synchronizing of data when compared to Oracle, it involves a set of technologies for copying and distributing data and database objects from one database to another and then synchronizing between databases to maintain consistency. Administration: SQL server GUI is simple and easy to work with whereas the Oracle server is not very user friendly as most of it command line is based. Definitely SQL Server is more easy, just ask Mr. Google
- 9. Microsoft SQL Server VS ORACLE DBMS - Technical Study Page 9 of 9 Reliability and DB availability It is our traditional legacy over the last 15 years (since the release of SQL Server 2000 over windows 2K Server Family), that Oracle is more reliable than Microsoft SQL server. One of the main reasons this was true 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 on Windows 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 the Oracle/UNIX installs have been traditionally much more reliable as we mentioned earlier, since SQL 2005 and Windows Server 2003, MS has gotten pretty close to the same reliability. I think the biggest problem with most MS shops is less-experienced resources tend to manage the servers. If you have a good UNIX admin and a good MS Server admin, they are both pretty reliable. One of the bigger reliability issues on the MS end is untrained resources tend to manage them because the tools and user-interfaces are so good. You cannot blame the software for people mis-using it. If you have a good server admin and a good DBA (as you almost always have with Oracle) MSSQL is very reliable. Conclusion From a scientific and technical point of view, I personally believe Microsoft SQL server delivers much far better value for money for over 99% of business and organizations worldwide, it is not strange that we as Softexians (Who works in Softex Software House) appreciate such value, after all Softex most unique value 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. Reda CEO Softex Software House www.softexsw.com
In all cases ,thank you very much for participating
Maged A. Reda : Author of the document
“
It is understandable that people's preference is often irrational toward what they know and use (e.g, 'its better'). However, you even state one key point in your document that - no matter the other benefits - can kill using SQL Server as the right solution. Quoting from your paper:
'Writers block readers and readers block writers'. If you are dealing with an OLAP system then not a big deal. Major deal if you are supporting a transactional web application.
There are possibly ways around this by setting isolation levels but it cannot be done at the server or DB level from what I understand. It has to happen at the individual session level - controlled by the calling program depending on what it is doing.
There are lots of other under-the-cover features available in Oracle that are not available in SQL Server. One I definitely miss - deferrable constraints (FK and check) so that they are not verified until the 'commit' statement is issued. This allows the building of a record in stages, or even the insertion of a child FK value before the parent PK value even exists, etc. That feature comes in very handy for application developers that I support allowing them to develop with more freedom in the patterns they use.