Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
MSSQL vs Oracle: What are the differences?
## Key Differences between MSSQL and Oracle
Microsoft SQL Server (MSSQL) and Oracle are two popular relational database management systems that are widely used in enterprises worldwide. Both have their unique features and capabilities that make them suitable for different business requirements. Below are the key differences between MSSQL and Oracle.
1. **Licensing Cost**: MSSQL is considered to be more budget-friendly compared to Oracle, as Oracle's licensing costs are generally higher, especially for larger enterprises. This cost difference can be significant for businesses looking to minimize their expenses on database management systems.
2. **Supported Platforms**: MSSQL is primarily designed for the Windows platform, whereas Oracle is more versatile and supports multiple platforms like Windows, Linux, and Unix. This platform flexibility of Oracle provides users with more choices for deployment, depending on their infrastructure and IT environment.
3. **Performance Tuning**: While both MSSQL and Oracle offer tools for performance tuning, Oracle is known to have more advanced optimization techniques and features. Oracle Database's query optimizer is highly sophisticated, allowing for better query execution plans and overall performance efficiency compared to MSSQL.
4. **Scalability**: Oracle is often considered more scalable than MSSQL, especially when dealing with massive enterprise-level databases. Oracle's architecture and features, such as Real Application Clusters (RAC), make it easier to scale database resources horizontally and vertically, ensuring better performance and high availability.
5. **High Availability**: Oracle databases are known for their robust high availability solutions like Oracle RAC, Data Guard, and Active Data Guard, which provide seamless failover and data protection mechanisms. MSSQL also offers high availability features like AlwaysOn Availability Groups, but Oracle is generally perceived as having more sophisticated options and better reliability in this aspect.
6. **Maintenance and Support**: When it comes to maintenance and support services, Oracle typically offers more comprehensive and responsive support compared to MSSQL. Oracle's dedicated support team and extensive documentation resources make it easier for users to troubleshoot issues and keep their database systems running smoothly.
In Summary, Microsoft SQL Server (MSSQL) and Oracle have key differences in licensing cost, supported platforms, performance tuning, scalability, high availability, and maintenance and support. Businesses should consider these factors carefully when choosing a database management system that aligns with their specific needs and budget.
We are planning to migrate one of my applications from MSSQL to MySQL. Can someone help me with the version to select?. I have a strong inclination towards MySql 5.7. But, I see there are some standout features added in Mysql 8.0 like JSON_TABLE. Just wanted to know if the newer version has not compromised on its speed while giving out some add on features.
MySQL AB doesn't implement anything in MySQL until they can find a way to do it efficiently and, often, more efficiently than other systems. So although I don't have experience with benchmarking JSON_TABLEs or similar new features, their development philosophy alone suggests that version 8 for the latest features would be a safe jump without sacrificing system performance.
MySQL 8.0 is significantly better than MySQL 5.7. For all InnoDB row operations, you'll see a great performance improvement. Also, the time taken to process transactions is lower in MySQL 8.0. Moreover, there has been an improvement in managing read and read/write workloads.
We have chosen Tibero over Oracle because we want to offer a PL/SQL-as-a-Service that the users can deploy in any Cloud without concerns from our website at some standard cost. With Oracle Database, developers would have to worry about what they implement and the related costs of each feature but the licensing model from Tibero is just 1 price and we have all features included, so we don't have to worry and developers using our SQLaaS neither. PostgreSQL would be open source. We have chosen Tibero over Oracle because we want to offer a PL/SQL that you can deploy in any Cloud without concerns. PostgreSQL would be the open source option but we need to offer an SQLaaS with encryption and more enterprise features in the background and best value option we have found, it was Tibero Database for PL/SQL-based applications.
We wanted a JSON datastore that could save the state of our bioinformatics visualizations without destructive normalization. As a leading NoSQL data storage technology, MongoDB has been a perfect fit for our needs. Plus it's open source, and has an enterprise SLA scale-out path, with support of hosted solutions like Atlas. Mongo has been an absolute champ. So much so that SQL and Oracle have begun shipping JSON column types as a new feature for their databases. And when Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) announced support for JSON, we basically had our FHIR datalake technology.
In the field of bioinformatics, we regularly work with hierarchical and unstructured document data. Unstructured text data from PDFs, image data from radiographs, phylogenetic trees and cladograms, network graphs, streaming ECG data... none of it fits into a traditional SQL database particularly well. As such, we prefer to use document oriented databases.
MongoDB is probably the oldest component in our stack besides Javascript, having been in it for over 5 years. At the time, we were looking for a technology that could simply cache our data visualization state (stored in JSON) in a database as-is without any destructive normalization. MongoDB was the perfect tool; and has been exceeding expectations ever since.
Trivia fact: some of the earliest electronic medical records (EMRs) used a document oriented database called MUMPS as early as the 1960s, prior to the invention of SQL. MUMPS is still in use today in systems like Epic and VistA, and stores upwards of 40% of all medical records at hospitals. So, we saw MongoDB as something as a 21st century version of the MUMPS database.
While there's been some very clever techniques that has allowed non-natively supported geo querying to be performed, it is incredibly slow in the long game and error prone at best.
MySQL finally introduced it's own GEO functions and special indexing operations for GIS type data. I prototyped with this, as MySQL is the most familiar database to me. But no matter what I did with it, how much tuning i'd give it, how much I played with it, the results would come back inconsistent.
It was very disappointing.
I figured, at this point, that SQL Server, being an enterprise solution authored by one of the biggest worldwide software developers in the world, Microsoft, might contain some decent GIS in it.
I was very disappointed.
Postgres is a Database solution i'm still getting familiar with, but I noticed it had no built in support for GIS. So I hilariously didn't pay it too much attention. That was until I stumbled upon PostGIS and my world changed forever.
I happen to point my asp.net core web application from MSSQL to MySQL due to infrastructure costs associated with the former db. The application also had challenges creating a migration schema of asp.net membership on MySQL.
After a thorough research I figured out how to do it and also made a video and uploaded to youtube. You can check that here https://youtu.be/X4I0DUw6C84
The full source code for the demo template is available on github here http://bit.ly/2LWgacA
Pros of MSSQL
- Easy of use3
Pros of Oracle
- Reliable44
- Enterprise33
- High Availability15
- Hard to maintain5
- Expensive5
- Maintainable4
- Hard to use4
- High complexity3
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of MSSQL
- License Cost1
- Vendor lock-in1
Cons of Oracle
- Expensive14
