|
Home > Archive > MS SQL Server > March 2006 > Oracle 10G R2 easier to manage than SQL 2K5
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Oracle 10G R2 easier to manage than SQL 2K5
|
|
|
|
| David Browne 2006-03-26, 11:23 am |
|
"Hassan" <Hassan@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u1RmA4JUGHA.1160@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> http://www.oracle.com/database/docs...0051
.pdf
>
>
>
It's a trivial and uninteresting exercise to generate such a report. Just
analyze the feature differences between the products to find a handful of
features you can exploit. Then design the "tests" around those feature
differences. Then run your tests and take advantages of the many, many
subtile ways you can make one product appear better or worse.
I'm not saying that the conclusion of the report is false, just that you can
sponsor a report like that to support whatever conclusion you want.
David
| |
| Dan Guzman 2006-03-26, 11:23 am |
| > Then run your tests and take advantages of the many, many subtile ways you
> can make one product appear better or worse.
For example, a good reader exercise is to determine why Windows 2000 was
chosen instead of the current Windows 2003 OS. One need only visit the
author's web page http://www.theedison.com/ to understand the veracity of
the content.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"David Browne" <davidbaxterbrowne no potted meat@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:uK8NLmOUGHA.1444@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>
> "Hassan" <Hassan@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:u1RmA4JUGHA.1160@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>
> It's a trivial and uninteresting exercise to generate such a report. Just
> analyze the feature differences between the products to find a handful of
> features you can exploit. Then design the "tests" around those feature
> differences. Then run your tests and take advantages of the many, many
> subtile ways you can make one product appear better or worse.
>
> I'm not saying that the conclusion of the report is false, just that you
> can sponsor a report like that to support whatever conclusion you want.
>
>
> David
>
| |
| Andrew J. Kelly 2006-03-26, 8:23 pm |
| Very true. This report didn't seem to take into account any real world
circumstances. And there was a high value on less key strokes as an
indicator of which is better or not. If one product used two key strokes
and the other 3 then one is 33% better than the other in their eyes. Without
proper context these numbers mean nothing. This is even more useless on an
activity that you may do once a month or even once a year.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"David Browne" <davidbaxterbrowne no potted meat@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:uK8NLmOUGHA.1444@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>
> "Hassan" <Hassan@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:u1RmA4JUGHA.1160@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>
> It's a trivial and uninteresting exercise to generate such a report. Just
> analyze the feature differences between the products to find a handful of
> features you can exploit. Then design the "tests" around those feature
> differences. Then run your tests and take advantages of the many, many
> subtile ways you can make one product appear better or worse.
>
> I'm not saying that the conclusion of the report is false, just that you
> can sponsor a report like that to support whatever conclusion you want.
>
>
> David
>
|
|
|
|
|