This came off of the ESRI AkeInfo-l. Seems to confirm that Oracle is the best technically and they get value for it. Microsoft's SQLServer has to be given away and we all know how much trouble Bill has gotten into giving stuff away. Also remember that at the moment, ESRI products can not access the Spatial Cartridge. FYI MidNight Mapper aka Neil ****************************** "Luís Galiza Cardoso" wrote: > Hello List > > Here is my sum on the question about Oracle vs Sql Server. Our way seems > to point to Oracle. These are the messages I got from the list, and I'd > like tp thanks all the people that sent them. > > Hi > I don't know much about SQLServer, but I do know that Oracle is the > fastest at accessing data when you have large tables (i.e. >=GB). I also > saw an impressive presentation on Oracle 8's ability to index vector > topologies. If you have a lot of data, especially vector data, it looks > like Oracle's the way to go for speed. > > cheers > Caren Dymond > > The only insight that I can offer is that the Hansen Permits software > does not run on the most current version of Oracle (8.05). It ran fine > on 8.03, but other things running on our system required us to upgrade to > 8.05. We have recently had to go out and purchase a SQL server > specifically for running Hansen. > > Kelly Perry > GIS Specialist > Clermont County, Ohio > > Hello Luis > > We have many more clients that use Oracle that us SQLServer, probably > because Oracle has been out longer. I have not heard any complaints from > the clients using SQLServer. I do believe that Oracle is a more robust > server so if you have a large database, it might be best to go with > Oracle. If you have a smaller database, it might be more cost effective > to go with SQLServer. > > Might I ask what kind of municipality work you need done? And for what > municipality? > > Richard Montague > GIS Project Manager > Hansen Information Technologies > 1745 Markston Road > Sacramento, CA 95825 > 916-481-7360 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > We have been working with oracle for two years now .it is a good and fast > database manager, we tested sql-server too, but oracle was better in all > aspect except the price > > ernesto enei > > In my opinion, if you have deep pockets, ORACLE is the best > > Juliana Wafula > > Dear Mr. Cardoso > > I can't comment on your question, but I would like to ask you to e-mail > me a copy of your sum. > > If your interested in a general comparison between Oracle and SQL Server > (not GIS specific), one article I found is in the PC Magazine of August > 1999. > > Kindest regards, > Stefan Weigel > > One issue that we didnt really pick up till late in evaluation was marked > difference in licensing method (and MS suppliers were either very > secretive about it or plain ignorant). With SQL server you need a client > license for every PC you will connect to the server (and some special > issues relate to web licencing). With Oracle you pay for no.of > simultaneously connect sessions connected to your server. Since we looked > at SQL server because of price, this was very significant. Eg. If you > have 200 PCs in your organisation and all are them are likely to be > connected to the server at once, then SQL server is far cheaper. If the > same 200 have only occasional need to connect ( or significant no. have > only occasional need - someone who connects once a month to check leave > status still needs a client licence for SQL server), so that only say 100 > simultaneous connections will suffice then Oracle becomes massively > cheaper. Support is paid for on quite different basis too. > > Oracle will require you to have a DBA - and they arent cheap. On other > hand, if SQL server is mission critical, I cant imagine you surviving > without DBA either. > > On technical front it gets much harder. SQL Server has full text indexing > which you will pay through nose for on Oracle (though the Oracle addon is > much more powerful). SQL server's SQL is less archaic. If you have ODBC > clients, then SQL server has timestamp fields which allow for efficient > updates of single records especially with BLOBs. I havent found a way to > emulate this in Oracle. Oracles's PL/SQL is powerful stuff cf. SQL > server. Now can use Java to write stored procedures too. Performance and > scalability are major contest points but very hard to evaluate properly > the real cost/value of these to your organization. It looks Oracle is > regarded as better on both counts but extremely difficult to find > meaningful comparisons. > > Hope that helps. We went for oracle because 50 connections serves our 230 > users fine so Oracle won easily on price. Best advice I heard was "choose > your poison and live with it" - both have things that will make you wish > you had bought the other some days. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Phil Scadden, Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences > PO Box 30368, Lower Hutt, New Zealand > Ph +64 4 5704821, fax +64 4 5704603 > > One works, 8i, and the others try to keep up. > > Neil Havermale > > Hi there: > > My agency, the Kentucky Fish and Wildlife has been using SQL Server 6.5 > for the past 4 years. Our website can query our database on time using > SQL Server. We do a lot of work in ArcView and Map Objects IMS. You can > see how it works by going to > http://www.kfwis.state.ky.us/specieschecklists/cnty4sps.htm > > There was some unknown problems I have with the Administration but I just > have been on the job for 4 months and has no formal training. We tend to > use Access for querying data and are very happy with this route. I > suspect that after my training in November and may be upgrade to 7.0, SQL > Server should be able to everything we need. Yes, the cost is the main > factor why the agency went with SQL Server. We got the 6.5 for almost > free (it was bundle with our new Alpha server), in compare with $30,000+ > for Oracle. > > Daniel Vichitbandha ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, send e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put "unsubscribe MAPINFO-L" in the message body, or contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
