SQL Server vs Others: White paper? 
Author Message
 SQL Server vs Others: White paper?

Folks:

Looking for a resource that would detail and explain the
differences/benefits of using SQL Server vs other database technologies,
particularly BTrieve.  Yes, I know the basics of the scalability argument,
etc, but I am not a database person by training, so my answers to those sort
of questions aren't polished. The reason for this is simple: cost. In
evaluating ERP systems based on different database technologies, the cost
differential is massive, for example: Great Plains Dynamics C/S+ (SQL
Server) is FIVE TIMES more expensive than the BTrieve based Dynamics. The
modules are identical in functionality, etc (Purchase orders on one
looks/works just like the other), but Great Plains wants a premium for the
SQL-based product. I KNOW in my gut the SQL version would be a better
choice, but when looking at the $$, its hard for me to justify since I don't
know all the issues.

Any help out there? Please reply via email and to the group if possible.

Ronnie Colvin



Sat, 23 Jun 2001 03:00:00 GMT
 SQL Server vs Others: White paper?

Ronnie,

 As always there is tons of info out there, but never quite what you want.  As
you're talking SQL vs non-SQL try this

Quote:
> Subject: SQL Server vs Others: White paper?

Q.  Why is SQL Server slower than Access/FoxPro/DBase etc.
(v1.0  3.12.1998)

A.  Twofold :-

1.  The mentioned products are great for "small" numbers of users and "small"
databases.  They carry very little overhead and rely on the client for
record/file locking.  This is great for one or a few number of users, or when
data is read-only, but when many users access the system the overhead of doing
locking by file offset with SMB packets is enormous, and the application will
usually grind to a halt/connections will be lost/database will be corrupted
etc.

SQL Server is a true client/server app and so scales far better, but the
overhead of doing all the locking etc. at the server end is far higher in some
cases.

(Note "small" is a relative term - this could be a hundred users and a 1Gb
database - which is large to many people).#

2.  SQL Server logs all writes to a transaction log before it writes to actual
data pages.  It also (with 6.5 and below) has to update indices when records in
the main table are changed due to page splits etc.  This overhead is great for
consistency and reliability, but not for raw performance.  This logging cannot
be turned off.

 Neil Pike MVP/MCSE.  Protech Computing Ltd
 (Please post ALL replies to the newsgroup only unless indicated otherwise)
 For SQL FAQ entries see www.ntfaq.com/sql.html
 and http://www.swynk.com/faq/sql/sqlserverfaq.asp
 and GO MSSQL Lib 1 on Compuserve



Sat, 23 Jun 2001 03:00:00 GMT
 
 [ 3 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. Informix Vs MS Sql White papers / reports

2. SQL SERVER 7.0 White Paper - Web Site

3. New SQL SERVER 7.0 White Paper Web site

4. SQL Server white papers

5. White paper kinda stuff on migrating Unify database to SQL Server

6. NT40 VS HP-UNIX white papers

7. System 10 vs. Oracle 7.x White Paper

8. Oracle vs. Sybase White Papers

9. FoxPro vs Access white paper?

10. Sybase Key Server / White paper

11. SQL differences: Oracle vs Sybase vs others


 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software