by Bill Wunder

It's always interesting to see what database vendors have to say about each other. From here it doesn't look like one is any better than another in one area for sure: the marketing distortions, gerrymandering and outright malevolence used to convince us their db engine is better than the other guys. Generally, when I am reading something authored by Microsoft or someone I know to be a Microsoft proponent, I enable my internal 'quality of message' filter when I come upon comments about Oracle or IBM or any other database product. Likewise If a SQL Server comment comes from an admitted Oracle advocate I tend to look at those comments with skepticism.

To begin with I only know about a thimble full about administering the Oracle database and it has been close to 10 years since my last AS/400 gig. That means you could tell me anything about 10g or DB2 and my only real recourse is to trust you are telling the truth or not believe a word you say. Since almost all comparative literature I see contains something less than the truth about SQL Server - whether authored by a pro or a con (pun intended)- I'm sticking with notion that the same is true for the guy that conducts comparative reviews/test about MySQL or Cache or any other database products. At least if I know who is buying lunch I know the thesis that the author must validate.   

The type of message that is more dangerous is the case where a supposedly neutral third party does a comparison between products. I mean when Microsoft starts talking about TPC-C I know they've snuck a few nuggets on the scales or when IBM spouts comparative TCO metrics I know who will look the best with out the need to read the words. But when an eWeek or Gartner proclamation offers up the same sort of analysis it's not so easy to tell who the favorite is and who the patsy is. It is however still pretty easy to pick out the inaccuracies in the part of the discussion I am more familiar with in far too many cases. This leaves me convinced that selecting a database platform these days is an academic exercise in being somebody's fool. If you are going to make the decision based solely on research, the decision is who's fool you want to be not who's database will do the best job for your needs.

Having said that I'm a little reluctant to even appear to pick on any particular author or venue but would like to provide a little evidence for my premise. I get a large portion of my database news right from sswug.org. Stephen does an awesome job of finding quality database related links and sharing them with us in the daily news letter.  I get my general daily news dose from Yahoo! Among the aggregated feeds that I watch on Yahoo! are the headlines from CMP's TechWeb site.

Today in the TechWeb headlines I read with some interest an article "More Database per Dollar" by Susana Schwartz. The essence of the story is the accurate premise that the SMB database market is growing ever more competitive. To help make the point, Ms Schwartz summarizes the findings of a supposedly disaffected third party's comparison of Oracle 10g and SQL Server 2000 in terms of which is more cost effective to administer then provides some interesting comments from the folks at the testing organization, Microsoft, Oracle. All in all a short and interesting read that really did not attempt to support or refute the findings of the study. Rather the article set the table for the reader to recognize the growing complexity and competitiveness in the SMB database space and included a few comments from Microsoft's Tom Rizzo and Oracle's Bob Shimp.

There was a link to the study , "Comparative Management Cost Study of Oracle Database 10g and Microsoft SQL Server 2000". The very same study that Stephen told us about in the daily newsletter on May 11th ("SQL Server Admin. vs Oracle Admin - Who's more complex?") and again throughout the week with feedback from many in the sswug.org community.  I can't resist adding my comments to the fray. My favorite part of the study is the finding that the difference between the products equates to a 30% salary differential. I guess that means you can pay the Oracle DBA 30% less but the study really didn't say that, it just offered the number. Aside from that er... ummm... ambiguous interpretation of the test results I had more than a few questions about the test's data points.

The first area of consideration was "Software Installation". While the study found that it took half as much time to install SQL Server (12.7 minutes for SQL Server and the Service Pack -vs- 20.2 minutes to install 10g) the test result was 0% difference in workday savings. They were able to reach this finding only after factoring in the installation of a second instance. Looks like adding a second instance to Oracle is easier than for SQL Server, but my reality is I do not use more than one instance of SQL Server 2000 on a production box. Furthermore, I usually budget 1.5 hours for the installation of a SQL Server. That time includes verification that the install did not have problems  (see my recent article SQL Server Informational Output Files Every DBA Should Know About), installing SQL Litespeed (see my 5 part series Heavy Duty LiteSpeed Log Shipping), installing SMTP email capabilities (see my 4 part series that begins on SMTP: Take My SQLMail, Please!), and setting up my automated processes for performance monitoring (see my three part series on monitoring: SQL Darwinism- On SQL Server Baselines, Metrics Collection and Trend Analysis)  While, the study finding is ominous, for me it clearly doesn't match reality.

The next area of consideration was "Day to Day Database Administration Tasks."  The result was pretty close with a slight advantage going to Oracle, but I noted that SQL Server lost some points because they used separate steps to create a file group and a file. Guess they didn't know you could specify a new file group name when creating a new database file in SQL Server's Enterprise Manager even though the vendor claims that SQL Server had always been their SMB database of choice in the past. Also appears that they aren't aware of the index creation wizard in SQL Server's Enterprise Manager since, they didn't use it, and as a result Oracle came out barely ahead on that task given the test  "rules". This is doubly suspicious because the testing criteria was weighted to the advantage of a wizard in terms of complexity. This advantage for wizards held throughout except in a later case of recovering a dropped table when it was advantageous to use the command line rather than the GUI to do the recovery in the Oracle product. I suspect Oracle could have still recovered the table faster, but the testers found an Oracle weighted advantage by using the command line for this one operation. I point this out now because in the "Day to Day..." category the testers indicate that SQL Server had no automated way to tell when a database is fragmented. Guess they weren't familiar with DBCC SHOWCONTIG or the SQL AGENT? (see my article Working with DBCC INDEXDEFRAG).

All the way through the test I had questions about the methodologies the tester used for SQL Server. I'll leave your analysis for you - and encourage you to read the link to the comments of several other sswug.org folks - for most and will skip to one last area. "Performance Diagnostics and Tuning Tasks" where the most significant differences were noted. Here SQL Server 2000 was a miserable second in both "Diagnosing Performance Problem" and "Tune Resource Intensive SQL". First let me say it looks like Oracle has some nice stuff here and without knowing anything about the Oracle offering, my first reaction is that Microsoft needs to do some "me too" work in this area. (Go Ahead, Call me a fool) Apparently all you have to do is go look at the "ADDM Report" to identify poorly indexed queries and then click on a problem query to create the necessary index support. Sounds cool! The thing is, in my environment I need any new indexes to make it to development and acceptance and to Source Control, not just be created in production, so the GUI click may not be the end-all-do-all that it seems. Also, though the test documentation doesn't say for sure, it looks like the Oracle Diagnostic and Tuning Pack doesn't come with the database but is a separate application (separate purchase?). Is this application needed to produce the ADDM report? dunno...

I think the bottom line is that infomercials are too easily disguised as legitimate testing. No matter if the "winner" in a particular showdown is Oracle, Microsoft, DB2 or even - as happens only rarely so far - MySQL, the worst outcome of such propaganda is that the boss sees the articles, accepts the summarizations, presupposes the legitimacy of the test, and sets his feelers on what a particular study finds right with it's favored product and wrong with the opponent. (I reminded of the day the boss wanted to move the intranet to PHP/MySQL a while back in our all Microsoft shop because "It's Free!") Perhaps it's all just different aspects of the journalistic manipulation that we are told we are seeing in the other areas of advertising and politics. (Gotta love those conspiracy theories.)

Bill