Oracle vs. SQL Server in enterprise applications

The company I serve not only has an Oracle database, but also has a SQL Server database, so I often meet people asking me two questions.

The first type is usually "can you teach me to use Oracle?" In the beginning, my polite answer to this is generally "yes, I'm actually going to do an Oracle class, and I'll call you when I'm ready." It's a good way to do it, and I didn't tell the inquirer it might take me weeks. Sometimes I further tell them where to download Oracle's full version for them to install and be familiar with. But sometimes this is a problem for me because it can lead to too many followers.

The second is generally the beginning of "We have some problems with SQL Server and I want to see how Oracle handles this problem." Well, we've finally made some progress. I can help them, but it won't take me a few hours. It should be a narrative that has been carefully considered for a particular issue, and Oracle's answer to this question will point the way to the Inquirer and may lead them to solve the SQL Server problem. "Our SQL Server database is getting too big," asked the--oracle, "How do we deal with this problem?"

I want to help, but my methods may have been wrong all along. Maybe I should write a summary to summarize some of the problems that may be involved. When other people ask me for help, I can give him the list of questions. If the person is receiving an ordinary Oracle initiation education, the list may be a little broader. On the other hand, if the inquirer is searching for solutions to specific and quantifiable problems, the handbook can also help them move along in the right direction so they can find the answers on their desktops.

But I didn't do it because it took too much time. Although I helped these "aliens" as much as I could, I was really worried about spending too much time with them and straying away from my course. That would be a bad precedent. It will encourage them to come back and turn to me again at some point in time when they encounter some distress. Instead, I just spent a few minutes talking about design flaws in SQL Server. The content that the architecture involves is immutable. If you delve into the technical details of a database platform contrast judgment, you generally cannot get those self-evident principles. Conversely, if you decide to use Microsoft's database platform, these problems must exist. Its characteristics or flaws may be handled better by us, but the basic mechanism of the product is not easily changed-and certainly not easily changed by the end user of the closed source software. Of course, there are ways to alleviate pain, but it is not possible to overcome these problems. There is a big difference between the two platforms, not to mention the differences in the origins of many problems.

Please keep in mind that I am not the system that maintains the florist on the street. Microsoft is doing its best to enter the enterprise into Oracle's territory. So what I'm going to talk about is the concerns of an enterprise-class system administrator.

Because companies need to manage enterprise-class systems (our company is SAP), I prefer to use multiuser (multiuser) databases. Now you may think that I use this term too lightly. There are actually a large number of users using SQL Server in a multiuser environment, aren't they? But do they deal with a large number of concurrent users that are affected by the platform or whether they are concurrent users? For example, let's look at the problem with the lock (locking). At first, Microsoft tells you that the reader-blocking-writer mechanism is good and safe. It will tell you that this mechanism prevents the user from performing "misreading (Dirty Read)." Don't believe this nonsense; it's just an excuse for low performance. This reminds me of sun's long-standing insistence that the 64-bit system is not a necessary position. There is no need to be present before they sell this product. Next, one day Scott McNealy in front of you to talk about the benefits of growing physical memory addressing.

So what is "wrong reading"? Microsoft will tell you that if someone is updating a row of data and you are ready to read the data row in the update, you will get the wrong read. Wrong reading = Bad data-This is what Microsoft wants you to believe. But what happens if an update operation is not committed for a long time? The data is not actually changed. What happens if that update is rolled back at the end of the transaction? What do the waiting for these readers get? nothing.