SQL Server versus Oracle database comparison

mp6841564

Member
I'm interested in any JD Edwards customers that have moved from a SQL Server database to an Oracle one and the issues that have occurred (or even performance improvements). If possible it would be good to compare with similar hardware, so it's "like for like". (e.g Intel hardware with Windows/SQL 2008R2 and Oracle/Red Hat Linux/Oracle11gr2)

Thanks.
 
I think the differences between the two will focus mostly on cost and increased complexity of support (for the Oracle side). MS SQL is still the lowest cost of ownership in my opinion (though I'm sure some DB2/400 people might disagree) - whereas Oracle is the highest cost of ownership. From a scalability standpoint, I would say it really doesn't matter for anything up to about 1000 concurrent users. Beyond that, Oracle has tools to make their product REALLY scale.

Oracle vs SQL on similar hardware, its negligible performance differences between the two. The fact is, however, that its rare that you just see a database platform shift - often it also coincides with hardware differences and that usually is where the performance difference comes from.

As for Win2K8 vs Redhat - Oracle on both has negligible performance differences between the two. Obviously you cannot run SQL on linux - but the major difference between the two is that you don't have to run antivirus on your database server with linux, and that can really make a big difference in your organization.

Remember, you should only implement whatever database you are comfortable with and that you have in-house expertise on. You should never chase a database provider because of a perceived performance difference - its VERY unlikely that performance is going to improve by switching database.
 
Back
Top