I fail to understand that. Majority of our clients (big companies) use Oracle exclusevely. I can't understand why anybody would do that. Compared to IBM DB2, Oracle is more expensive, slower and much harder to setup and maintain. The same stands when comparing it to SQL Server.
Why do most organizations use Oracle?
- Thread starter Argo
- Start date
Oracle is pretty rock-solid. Yes, installation is a PITA compared to SQL Server but the long-term benefits of stability outweigh that initial cost.
We've been on Sybase Adaptive Server for years. Newer systems are tending to use Oracle, but we're not going out of our way to change from Sybase->Oracle.
-geoff
-geoff
We got Oracle around here, but there is talk about switching to DB2, but since we have A LOT of data (10+ terrabytes) I doubt we will.
Drakkon
Diamond Member
- Aug 14, 2001
- 8,401
- 1
- 0
Its what they teach the MIS set, Oracle is god and should be worshipped as such when it comes to DB's. Even if all your doing is writting a simple program that will only use select/update/delete/insert/create commands they have been preprogrammed to suggest oracle as the only solution.
Its funny every CS student i talk to agrees mySQL is good enough for most people and every MIS student seems to think Oracle is the only DB solution for businesses.
Oracle is kidna like Java in the sence that probobly 90% of oracles possible functionality is NEVER used except by a certain few and only once in a while. Theres really not much that I've found that makes it "better" than SQL Server, or anything that makes it "worse" really...btw i do NOT think its slower...in fact if anything if a table is indexed properly oracle should be faster
Its funny every CS student i talk to agrees mySQL is good enough for most people and every MIS student seems to think Oracle is the only DB solution for businesses.
Oracle is kidna like Java in the sence that probobly 90% of oracles possible functionality is NEVER used except by a certain few and only once in a while. Theres really not much that I've found that makes it "better" than SQL Server, or anything that makes it "worse" really...btw i do NOT think its slower...in fact if anything if a table is indexed properly oracle should be faster
I'm not sure about performance compared to SQL Server. But DB2 is definitely noticeably faster than Oracle.
Ok, how about the case where none of my software applications are compatible with DB2? Every app that I administrate requires one of these three: MS Access, SQL Server, Oracle. Period.
I'm not saying the DB2 is good or bad. This is just the reality.
Our application supports both. We always recommend our customers use DB2.
But I regress - I guess it's catch 22. Application developers chose to support Oracle because organizations are using it. And organizations use oracle because most applications support it.
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,586
- 986
- 126
My company is converting to Oracle. Should be up on it by Y/E.
It will look good on my resume if nothing else.
Edit-We have over $6 million in annual sales and nothing we sell costs more than $1,000. You can see how large a database that would create.
It will look good on my resume if nothing else.
Edit-We have over $6 million in annual sales and nothing we sell costs more than $1,000. You can see how large a database that would create.
MrChad
Lifer
- Aug 22, 2001
- 13,507
- 3
- 81
Oracle application support can be a pain in the ass. There are so many subtle bugs in the 4,385 different patches and revisions of the Oracle client (which customers conveniently update without telling anyone) that troubleshooting random DB errors can be a pain.
Don't even get me started about updating CLOB fields.
OutHouse
Lifer
- Jun 5, 2000
- 36,410
- 616
- 126
I cant even think of one app that uses DB2.
On the other hand ever heard of Progress? Our main internal stuff runs on Progress but all the products we offer to our customers run on SQL.
From my 6 years of experience here, Progress is a fricken pain in the neck. something is always going wrong with a broker or whatever.
However SQL has been rock SOLID. we have over 20 SQL db's here and have never had any strange crap happen to a production db like we do for Progress.
Ever heard of a product called MQSI Broker? Almost every financial institution uses it and that uses DB2.
Originally posted by: MrChad
Oracle application support can be a pain in the ass. There are so many subtle bugs in the 4,385 different patches and revisions of the Oracle client (which customers conveniently update without telling anyone) that troubleshooting random DB errors can be a pain.
Don't even get me started about updating CLOB fields.
I was just dealing with a client, suggesting they change their CLOB/BLOB fields to LONG/LONGRAW. The reason? LONG/LONGRAW give about 50% higher performance. The kicker? Oracle deprecated LONG/LONGRAW and suggests its customers use BLOB/CLOB.
MrChad
Lifer
- Aug 22, 2001
- 13,507
- 3
- 81
Originally posted by: Argo
Originally posted by: MrChad
Oracle application support can be a pain in the ass. There are so many subtle bugs in the 4,385 different patches and revisions of the Oracle client (which customers conveniently update without telling anyone) that troubleshooting random DB errors can be a pain.
Don't even get me started about updating CLOB fields.
I was just dealing with a client, suggesting they change their CLOB/BLOB fields to LONG/LONGRAW. The reason? LONG/LONGRAW give about 50% higher performance. The kicker? Oracle deprecated LONG/LONGRAW and suggests its customers use BLOB/CLOB.
The problem with CLOB fields is that you can't insert more than 4000 characters into one without using Oracle-specific cursors. It's frustrating when you need to create special branches of code for what should be simple multi-platform SQL.
Originally posted by: MrChad
Originally posted by: Argo
Originally posted by: MrChad
Oracle application support can be a pain in the ass. There are so many subtle bugs in the 4,385 different patches and revisions of the Oracle client (which customers conveniently update without telling anyone) that troubleshooting random DB errors can be a pain.
Don't even get me started about updating CLOB fields.
I was just dealing with a client, suggesting they change their CLOB/BLOB fields to LONG/LONGRAW. The reason? LONG/LONGRAW give about 50% higher performance. The kicker? Oracle deprecated LONG/LONGRAW and suggests its customers use BLOB/CLOB.
The problem with CLOB fields is that you can't insert more than 4000 characters into one without using Oracle-specific cursors. It's frustrating when you need to create special branches of code for what should be simple multi-platform SQL.
Yup, exactly the reason CLOB/BLOB have slower performance. To insert a row with BLOB/CLOB column you first need to insert a row, inserting NULL into that column. Then you need to select that row and use the cursor to update the CLOB/BLOB column. You can see how that can be slower.
And don't get me started on administering tablespaces/users in Oracle. You actually need to create a new user if you want to use schemas...
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter