0

We're upgrading our systems to support clustering and auto failover features. Our business runs .NET 4 applications, web apps and services on SQL Server Express. We can upgrade to SQL Server Standard, but the cost has motivated us to consider other options. Is it a legitimate option to integrate our .NET data layer with ODP.NET? After searching, I have seen a tendentious statement or two in the negative (viz) and yet it would seem that people are doing it anyway. What development features in the Visual Studio IDE will we lose? Thanks for your help!

Community
  • 1
  • 1
Brandon Arnold
  • 410
  • 1
  • 5
  • 18
  • 5
    No matter whether or not you go with Oracle or SQL Standard, you'll still have to pay $$$, right? Even if the price tag of Oracle is cheaper than SQL standard, have you added the costs of migrating to the final price? Migrating can be more expensive than any licensing fees – Josh E Jul 20 '12 at 16:44
  • 3
    I would rather pay $$ than refactor my code to deal with Oracle. – TheGeekYouNeed Jul 20 '12 at 16:49
  • 2
    @JoshE, using the words "Oracle" and "cheap" in the same sentence doesn't seem quite right... – Ben Jul 20 '12 at 16:50
  • Thanks y'all. . .I'm not sure of the benefits - costs, I guess that is what it all comes down to. Unlike what I'd thought, Oracle apparently has comparable pricing to SQL Server. In which case migrating would not be worth it. But I will be waiting on the official pricing from a rep next week. – Brandon Arnold Jul 20 '12 at 17:58
  • I would be interested in reading how you compared the pricing between Oracle and SQL Server and found them comparable. http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/microsofts-sql-server-really-cheaper-oracle –  Jul 20 '12 at 19:11
  • @ShawnMelton: The equivalent Oracle solution for our needs using core-based pricing was 3-4 times more than SQL Server Standard, user-based pricing was about twice as much. The rep called earlier than expected. – Brandon Arnold Jul 20 '12 at 19:45
  • @Ben - indeed! If you look up 'oxymoron' in the dictionary, I believe the sample sentence used is along the lines of "Oracle is cheap" :) – Josh E Jul 20 '12 at 19:58

3 Answers3

3

Well, I'm now working since 20+ years with Oracle and MS SQL Server, having done a lot of projects. Some projects are running now more than 10 years, with all the updates, maintenance and so on.

My quick answer is: Stay with MS SQL Server. Go to Oracle only, if you have really GOOD TECHNICAL reason, or if you are planning really an ENORMOUS database, and if you have enough staff to handle all thge administration.

The main reason is that SQL Server is much easier to maintain; and it also integrates greatly into the Microsoft environment.

Oracle, in contrast, has a steep learning curve. The handling of Oracle is much more "manual" then MS SQL Server. Well, that's also a good thing, because you are in control of every small detail, but it also means that you need to learn a lot; or you need to pay experts. And it is not so easy to find people who really know what to do.

I really like both Systems, but for a rule of thumb, I normally suggest to use MS SQL Server.

  • Just to add this to my answer , if you compare the costs, don't forget to look at the OVERALL costs. Trust me, on the long run, Oracle has higher maintenance costs, and it pays off only if you are doing a really BIG thing, like an enterprise database. –  Jul 20 '12 at 19:20
  • Thanks Georg, that is very helpful. – Brandon Arnold Jul 20 '12 at 19:48
0

I've been using .net with Oracle for years, and migrate away from it whenever the option is available.

If all your database code is in stored procs and you call it though the codebehind or a library and you use ansi sql your migration from ms sql to oracle will be fairly painless.

If you use TableAdapters, they re-write any sql you put in to the oldschool oracle 8 syntax like table1,table2,table3 then have a big where clause to do the join conditions. There's also some weird bugs where sometimes sql that runs fine over in SQL Developer won't work in the TableAdapters.

If you use Entity Framework migration should be pretty easy, but the MS SQL driver is much better then the Oracle one. There have been several queries I couldn't do though EF in oracle because of some of the various errors with the current driver.

If you need more info let me know.

Also if Cost is the main reason to consider migration, why not go with mysql?

Andrew Walters
  • 4,763
  • 6
  • 35
  • 49
  • Thanks Andrew, I will be looking at MySQL. I'm afraid its Entity integration will leave a lot to be desired, but free is free and depending on how much wheel-reinvention is necessary, something like that may be worth it. – Brandon Arnold Jul 20 '12 at 19:49
0

Since you are already working in MS SQL, you must be habitual of the way it work, be it entity framework or any other data execution. Yes offcource, microsoft has very high license rates for it. But if you want to move to any other database, it is perfectly alright. I have personally used MS SQL and MySQL both. Initially you might face some syntax related issues, but do remember that logic remains the same for fetching and saving the data. Further it gives a benefit that you got to learn a new language and that too at the expense of far less money.

NG.
  • 5,695
  • 2
  • 19
  • 30