Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
The information contained in this document was gathered from many sources on the
world wide web (studies, articles, reports, blogs, etc.). A great deal of articles and
studies are, of course, one sided (slanted from one vendor’s perspective). Many claims
have been checked out for accuracy, and in many cases these claims have been found to
be untrue. This is due to:
a) Older information which was written before changes in current systems, and
which includes attitudes from prior dates. Both companies (MS and Oracle) are
doing more to compete with one another directly, and for now, the clients are the
winners.
b) Authors were not well informed of the other side’s capabilities.
c) Misleading sales language under the guise of a technical article.
The marketing myths that have been used as the core evaluation base in many
comparison papers and articles are, in many cases, misleading at best.
Furthermore, the original design of this document was divided into two sections:
advantages and disadvantages. This simpler document structure has changed because
situations vary, and facts must be classified as an “advantage” or “disadvantage” based
on the information. The information in this document is presented as clearly and simply
as possible. Depending on the planned usage of the system, the reader should have
sufficient data to assist in making any decision involving migration.
When looking to purchase a VLDB (Very Large Database), the important aspects that
any decision-maker will find themselves interested in are availability, performance,
reliability, scalability, security, and ease of use in terms of development. This also applies
to the VLDBMS (Very Large Database Management System).
Note: The migration process is an automatic and significant disadvantage because of
the time and resources involved; it costs in all areas. By comparing the two systems, we
can start to get an indication of whether the costly disadvantage of the migration
process is ever going to pay off in the short or long run in terms of advantages found in
the new system.
Database Ability:...............................................................................................5
Oracle........................................................................................................6
SQL ..........................................................................................................6
Conclusion: Database Ability.............................................................................6
Claims and Comparisons...................................................................................6
Taking a look at Oracle’s claims for accuracy...................................................6
Oracle’s RAC (Real Application Clusters) System..............................................6
Oracle’s claims vs. SQL Server 2005..............................................................7
Availability - Oracle RAC...............................................................................7
Availability - SQL Server 2005 ......................................................................7
Reliability - Oracle RAC.................................................................................8
Reliability - SQL Server 2005 .......................................................................8
Conclusion: Availability/Reliability .....................................................................8
Manageability....................................................................................................9
Managability - Oracle RAC............................................................................9
The Oracle RAC is very difficult/complex to get managed..................................9
RAC will require application and schema design changes. ................................9
RAC requires special storage solutions...........................................................9
Patching RAC is difficult................................................................................9
Tuning RAC is complex.................................................................................9
Managability - SQL Server 2005..................................................................10
Conclusion: Managability................................................................................10
Scalability and Performance............................................................................10
Scalability - Oracle RAC..............................................................................10
Scalability - SQL Server 2005......................................................................11
Conclusion: Scalability ...................................................................................11
Development Comparison: Oracle vs Current System........11
Integration with Visual Studio and the Microsoft .NET Platform........................11
Visual Studio and .NET CLR Integration............................................................12
SQL vs Oracle - ODBC Driver DLL Path.........................................................12
MSDN blogs, selvar, November 2007............................................................12
SQL
On the windows platform, SQL is the system of choice.2
SQL was the fastest growing vendor of 2006.2
Conclusion: Availability/Reliability
Both systems deliver highly available solutions, but SQL Server can match the high
availability capabilities of Oracle 10g RAC at a substantially lower cost.
Oracle’s “out of the box” RAC solution is a less reliable solution than SQL’s “out of the
box” solution. If you choose to purchase and add DataGuard and add the required
additional machine(s) to your system, then SQL Server 2005 and Oracle RAC both
deliver highly reliable solutions. Also note that Oracle’s DataGuard availability is based
on a difficult-to-manage system structure (more on this later).
One can see how perplexing this can get. It is also intriguing to note that some of these
suggestions are contradictory.7
Conclusion: Managability
SQL Server is, without a doubt, more manageable than Oracle Enterprise Solutions.
Conclusion: Scalability
Oracle is touted as the better system for large databases, but “there are many multi-
terabyte databases managed by SQL Server: Rosetta Genomics (10 TB), Verizon
Communications (5 TB), Lucent (3 TB, with 33 billion rows!), and many more. It can
theoretically support exabyte-level databases, using either the scale up or scale out
methods. Workload benchmarks also show SQL Server can handle all but the most
extreme throughputs: A single server can support more than 250,000 active users and a
32-node cluster can process 700,000 transactions per minute.” 8
SQL Server is as scalable as Oracle 10g R2. In some cases, SQL outperforms Oracle 10g.
More importantly, SQL delivers “scale up” as well as “scale out” solutions, at less cost
than Oracle.
Development Comparison:
Oracle vs Current System
If one considers a shop that is developing applications using Microsoft technologies and
is moving towards ASP.NET, this comparison is useful in decision-making. Criteria for the
following section are as follows:
• Integration with Microsoft Visual Studio and the Microsoft .NET platform
• Support for Service Oriented Architecture (SOA)-based application development
• Deployment flexibility
Integration of BI components
Oracle offers a rich BI platform that includes the following:
• Oracle OLAP option for analysis
• Oracle Data Mining option for data mining
• Oracle Reports for designing and generating reports
• Oracle Warehouse Builder for ETL
• Oracle BI Beans for developing OLAP applications
In addition to being extra-cost products, these are not integrated with Visual Studio. The
development framework of choice for developing BI applications is JAVA, not the .NET
Framework. Also, the tools provided by Oracle for developing and managing the BI
components such as JDeveloper, Oracle Discoverer, and Oracle Enterprise Manager are
HTML-based.11
Indexing SQL
Indexing is essential for fast execution of queries. SQL Server 2005 supports B*Tree
indexes on elements, values, and paths of the XML field. Indexing greatly speeds up
query execution. SQL Server 2005 also supports other indexes to speed up other types
of queries to XML data through PATH indexes, PROPERTY indexes, and VALUE indexes.
Indexing Oracle
Oracle provides only regular text indexing and functional indexes; that is, no indexing
specific to XML.11
Comparing SQL Server 2005 and Oracle 10g, Mitch Ruebush, April 2005
Information Security Brief Microsoft SQL Server, Enterprise Strategy Group, November 2006
It is interesting to note that Oracle leads the pack in vulnerabilities, followed by MySQL,
with a fairly consistent rate of vulnerabilities disclosed.12
Note that these numbers were through September and consequently do not reflect most
of the vulnerabilities from the latest Oracle Critical Patch Update - October 2006
(http://www.oracle.com/technology/deploy/security/critical-patch-
updates/cpuoct2006.html), which included 22 database fixes.
The Enterprise Strategy Group asserted their opinion that "...ESG considers Microsoft to
be years ahead of Oracle..."12
How does Litchfield explain Microsoft’s ability to reduce the occurence of security
vulnerabilities? There is no silver bullet, but the explanation lies in an old refrain to
those following Microsoft security: the Security Development Lifecycle.
Do the SQL Server 2005 results have no flaws because no one is looking at it?
No – I know of a number of good researchers who are looking at it – SQL Server code is
just more secure than Oracle code.
Do you have any predictions on the Oracle January 2007 Critical Patch Update?
Maybe – NGSSoftware are currently waiting for Oracle to fix 49 security flaws – these
will be fixed sometime in 2007 and 2008.
Why have there been so little bugs found in SQL Server since 2002?
Three words: Security Development Lifecycle – SDL. SDL is far and above the most
important factor. A key benefit of employing SDL means that knowledge learnt after
finding and fixing screw ups is not lost; instead it is ploughed back into to the cycle. This
Advantages and Disadvantages of Migrating from SQL Server to Oracle - 18 -
means rather than remaking the same mistakes elsewhere you can guarantee that new
code, whilst not necessarily completely secure, is at least more secure than the old code.
More on Security
SQL is certified by the federal government's C2-level security certification -- the highest
level of security available in the industry. Microsoft uses a combination of role-based
security for server, database and application profiles; integrated tools for security
auditing, tracking 18 different security events and additional sub-events; plus support
for sophisticated file and network encryption, including SSL, Kerberos and delegation.
An Oracle system with security equal to that which is available “out of the box” with SQL
Server will be available only as EXTRA-CHARGE options on Oracle, and now only with
Enterprise Edition.13
Conclusion: Security
According to all reports, papers, and articles found, SQL Server 2005 is far more secure
than Oracle 10g. This is verified by multiple sources (above) as well as IT Magazine,
Computer World, and others who all report that Microsoft, with proper execution, is
years ahead of Oracle in producing secure, reliable database solutions.14
Cost Comparison
Oracle is more expensive (although they claim that the hardware requirements make it
cost less than SQL).
Conclusion: Cost
Oracle is more expensive on the cheapest hardware system than the SQL Server solution
on the most expensive hardware system. Oracle’s claim of being cheaper does not seem
to be true.
Conclusion Overall:
Both systems seem to be capable of doing the job. Questions such as, “What do we
hope to gain by migrating from SQL to Oracle?” will hopefully now be easier to answer. It
is hard to see what the gains are; trends show more people migrating from Oracle to
SQL for the reasons detailed in this report.
“You are going from SQL to Oracle?? Most people go the other way.
I don’t think I have any info on going from SQL to Oracle.
Is there a price benefit?” - Account Manager, Softmart, Charlotte NC
Experts point out that migration is a difficult, complicated task. The question should be
posed, “Is the system we’re using NOT meeting our needs, or, is it (the system) NOT
working out for other reasons?” In other words, is a migration necessary? If, for some
reason, migration is necessary, some tips to help this go smoother (planning and
planning) are found above.
Footnotes
1
Spotlight on Oracle, WinterCorp, 2005
2
Spotlight on SQL Server, WinterCorp, 2005
Oracle pricing won't lure SQL Server users, Robert Westervelt, Feb 2004
Oracle vs. SQL Server: Face-off, By Robyn Lorusso and Tim DiChiara, Mar 2004
http://www.oracle.com/database/index.html
searchoracle.techtarget.com
Flaw hunters pick holes in Oracle patches, Joris Evers, ZDNet News, Oct 2005
Microsoft's Blue Hat Shows It's Serious About Security, Paul Roberts, October 2005
Choosing a Database for High Availability, Michael Otey, Denielle Otey, April 2005
SQL Server 2005 Enterprise Edition Benchmarks, November 2005, Updated: July 2007
Understanding Database Pricing and Liscensing, Darmadi Komo, May 2005, Updated Sept 2007