EditorsBlog

I've had this discussion a thousand times.  Instead of asking about the platform differences, ask about your staff differences:

OS preference - if your sysadmin team only knows Windows, then it makes sense to use SQL Server to have a single support point.  If your sysadmin team likes *nix, then you might want to go the Oracle route since you can deploy Oracle on AIX or other platforms.

Developer tools - if your programmers are heavily Microsoft-centric, like if you're a .NET shop, then it makes sense to go with SQL Server because your tools will usually integrate better.  If you're in a mostly Java or PHP shop, on the other hand, you may find easier development with Oracle.

It's easier to match your technology to your people than it is to buy a new platform and hire all-new skills for it.  Databases don't exist in a vacuum.

I don't know that an organization should choose Oracle unless they had massive databases or needed more granular control than SQL Server gives you. Why choose SQL Server over Oracle? Price.

This is a question I have to answer frequently. I began my professional life as an Oracle admin\developer. Now, however, I work only in SQL Server and haven't touched Oracle very often since version 8i. I don't pretend to be an Oracle expert any more, but I still know enough about it to comment on this question.

As I see it, the principle difference is that SQL Server is tightly integrated with the Windows OS and performs much better (my opinion) on the windows OS than does Oracle. However, I would not argue BrentO's point that the skill-set of the existing staff is also a critical consideration.

Oracle's advantage is that it can run on many intrinsically more powerful hardware platforms, UNIX for example. Its reputation for reliability is largely built on the fact that it often runs on more reliable OS and hardware, not that the database engine itself is more solid than SQL Server.

If the enterprise is committed to the Windows platform, both in terms of hardware and staff skill-set, there is no question in my mind that SQL Server is the best choice.  If it is not, then other factors come into play.

Development and administration costs for Oracle on UNIX or other non-windows platforms is high compared to SQL Server, at least 2-3 times higher.  The bar is also higher for an Oracle adminstrator and consequently harder to find and generally get higher salaries.

I would have to agree with the comments. The only way to answer the question of why SQL Server over other DBMS platforms is like a consultant – and that is ‘it depends’. It depends on the skills of the company, the existing infrastructure etc.

Pingback from  microsoft sql server | Digg hot tags

Pingback from  microsoft sql server | Digg hot tags

Price

and if the company is heavily using .Net code and Windows-shop for most servers, SQL Server makes sense

I also believe there are more SQL Server resource compared to Oracle, simply due to volume of SQL Server instances & users out there.

To me, SQL Server is a great overall product, getting better at every version since 7.0 and 2000 with more to come. And.... it pays my salary, what's not to like? :P