News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Announcing SQL Server on Linux. Parent comment

Re:Announcing SQL Server on Linux by jpgvm on Monday March 07, 2016 @05:00PM (#11242088)
Other gentleman is correct. The tier list is pretty simple.

MySQL < MSSQL < Oracle < PostgreSQL.

Basically PostgreSQL is king of relational databases right now.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Announcing SQL Server on Linux by lololomg on Monday March 07, 2016 @11:38PM (#11243566)
MSSQL < Oracle?

No way. Maybe Postgre is nicer than MSSQL for you. I don't know. But Oracle? Oracle is worse than MSSQL in just about every way that matters.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Announcing SQL Server on Linux by ismail on Monday March 07, 2016 @05:37PM (#11242328)
Why?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Announcing SQL Server on Linux by ktRolster on Monday March 07, 2016 @08:05PM (#11242924)
Free + Fast + no weird syntax (like Oracle) + Most features (although I think Oracle replication might still be better)
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Announcing SQL Server on Linux by jsmeaton on Monday March 07, 2016 @10:04PM (#11243318)
Oracle replication usually requires Golden Gate to the best of my knowledge. Someone was telling me the other day they hacked their own system together with shell scripts (ship and restore log files using scp etc), but that's probably not something you'd want to build your business on.

So yes, Oracle replication is probably better if you use Golden Gate. But Golden Gate is pretty expensive (17k per CPU?).

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Announcing SQL Server on Linux by cptskippy on Monday March 07, 2016 @10:18PM (#11243358)
I'm still unclear under what criteria Oracle comes out on top of MSSQL. Aside from the extreme high end, I can't think of a circumstance where I'd prefer using Oracle to MSSQL.
[ Parent | on HN ]