Oracle 10g vs SQL Server 2005

I had a request recently from someone for information on performance of Oracle 10g vs SQL Server 2005. I don't think there is too much around on SQL 2005 yet as it has not been officially released for that long and the Beta and CTP releases were not really meant to be used for benchmarking (in fact I think the license agreements explicitly states that this is not allowed).

I can't actually claim credit for this as the topic came up on the SQLDownUnder mailing list a couple of weeks ago and two of our Australian SQL Server MVPs submitted the following information.

  • Greg Linwood pointed out that there are tpc benchmarks and in terms of data warehousing there are the tpc-h benchmarks - which I just checked and noticed that SQL 2005 64-bit is currently in first position! This result was only logged on November 4, 2005.
  • and Greg Low  pointed out the following:

    http://www.wisdomforce.com/dweb/resources/docs/MSSQL2005_ORACLE10g_compare.pdf

    is a commonly-quoted resource.

    I should have also added it's described as balanced by those on the Oracle side of the fence. Compared to most things I've seen from the Oracle side, it's not bad. The one thing they also never discuss is money. That's usually a hands-down win to MS.

    Many other sites I read now are really trying to stretch the bounds of reality when trying to favour the Oracle camp. One I read yesterday was making a big deal about MS's inability to index bitmaps. Next time I need that will be the first :-)

Print | posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 1:34 PM

Comments on this post

# re: Oracle 10g vs SQL Server 2005

Requesting Gravatar...
Be careful, I think you're actually talking about a 'bitmap index'. The bitmap part is not what you are trying to index but how the information is stored. It's an alternative to b-tree indexes that is a boon in certain circumstances.
As far as I am aware Oracle has them available in their relational database whereas they are only used by MS in Analysis Services (and not SQL Server)
Left by Lozza on Dec 30, 2005 6:30 AM

# re: Oracle 10g vs SQL Server 2005

Requesting Gravatar...
Anyone that can send a detailed revioew on SQL Server2005 vs Oracle 10g.
Left by Abdul on Jan 26, 2006 11:10 AM

# re: Oracle 10g vs SQL Server 2005

Requesting Gravatar...
Anyone that can send a detailed revioew on SQL Server2005 vs Oracle 10g.
bc020200605@gmail.com
Left by Abdul on Jan 26, 2006 11:10 AM

# re: Oracle 10g vs SQL Server 2005

Requesting Gravatar...
"As far as I am aware Oracle has them available in their relational database whereas they are only used by MS in Analysis Services (and not SQL Server) "

You can't create bitmap indexes in SQL Server. However, SQL Server will create them on the fly if needed for a query plan. It doesn't really give you the performance compared to having them created on the table though.
Left by Brett on Aug 19, 2006 12:48 AM

# re: Oracle 10g vs SQL Server 2005

Requesting Gravatar...
I am developing one web site like orkut.com so can u tell me which is the better option for me oracle or mssql 2005(front end is asp.net).
Please also tell me orkut uses which database as a backend?
Left by Ashish on Jan 22, 2007 7:02 PM

# re: Oracle 10g vs SQL Server 2005

Requesting Gravatar...
Hi
when consider the factors like database size,simplicity and speed which is better oracle or sql server 2005.(Front end technology is ASP.NET)
Left by Ashish on Jan 22, 2007 7:54 PM

# re: Oracle 10g vs SQL Server 2005

Requesting Gravatar...
sql server 2005 db related questions:-
I have used the UDTs in my tables/views.
The UDTs are also used in the constraints like primary key with clusters,foreign key with references
and triggers are also created on those tables having UDTs.
My question is :-
If i want to remove the all UDTs from the tables then which database objects will this effect and how can i update the database?
Shall i go for new database creation i.e. new tables without UDTs and new views and triggers on new tables created.
Left by abani on Jun 25, 2007 4:56 PM

# re: Oracle 10g vs SQL Server 2005

Requesting Gravatar...
interest
Left by nay myo aung on Dec 17, 2007 5:40 PM

# re: Oracle 10g vs SQL Server 2005

Requesting Gravatar...
A point I saw stressed in Don Burleson's blog was that SQL*Server only runs on Windows. Now how can you seriously call a database "enterprise" if it can't run on Unix platforms?
Left by Jim Thomas on Mar 20, 2009 2:32 AM

# re: Oracle 10g vs SQL Server 2005

Requesting Gravatar...
If it can perform functions that are of value to an "Enterprise" while meeting their requirements for scaleability, security, reliability, etc. I would call it Enterprise. I don't really care too much what the underlying operating system is.
Left by Darren Gosbell on Mar 20, 2009 7:34 AM

# re: Oracle 10g vs SQL Server 2005

Requesting Gravatar...
For TPC-E (OLTP): it's quite simple to win if you play alone. This is a nice blog where you can find some of the reasons why the others company are not posting tpc-e
http://iablog.sybase.com/paulley/2008/10/the-state-of-tpc-e/
For datawarehousing and TPC-H:
first of all you have to understand what is the size you want to compete, after you decide what kind of db can give you that performances you're looking at and at what price you can get it: you can see that at more than 1Tb SQL Server start to remain after dB2 and Oracle, speakings of performances.
After this, sometimes it's less costly, sometimes it's not.
Left by JJ Gallo on Apr 28, 2009 7:11 PM

# re: Oracle 10g vs SQL Server 2005

Requesting Gravatar...
I have built a 7TB data warehouse 2 years ago using SQL 2005 and it was performing quite well, satisfying all business needs. Later I heard some laughable comments from Oracle specialists stating that SQL has performance issues with tables over 10k rows. Well in my project a dimension alone had 1 million members.
If someone makes statements about SQL (or any other database system) performance issues using concrete figures but with no reference to the hardware then a smile can be the only polite answer.
As someone pointed out:
SQL Server is clearly good enough for most businesses, most of the time. That positioning in the market, combined with a reasonable price, has led to its rapid rise. Oracle's "premium price for a premium product" approach may be appropriate for the extreme high end, but in this economic climate, it has proved deadly.
Left by Rob Kostecki on May 15, 2009 2:11 AM

Your comment:

 (will show your gravatar)