Very Computer

Hello, I am a recently laid off MS SQL DBA of five years, and I am planning to
learn Oracle to expand my DBA skills and marketability. If anyone has done
this, I would like to have your advice.

1)How difficult is it to learn Oracle?

2)How different is Oracle PL/SQL from T-SQL?

3)Was learning Oracle worth your investment in time and money?

4)How much will learning Oracle improve my marketability as a DBA?

THanks
Jinsoo
MCSE+I, MCDBA, MCSD, CCNA

Hi Jinsoo

Quote:> 1)How difficult is it to learn Oracle?

Regarding to the Enterprise versions, it's more difficult than SQL
Server
Reasons? Oracle system and administration architecture is too
case-comprehensive powerful, and therefore, complex, and remember that
Oracle is also cross platform DBMS

Quote:> 2)How different is Oracle PL/SQL from T-SQL?

General purpose basic features (some of the flow control constructions,
built-in functions/variables) not, but Oracle's proprietary extensions
differ

Quote:> 3)Was learning Oracle worth your investment in time and money?
> 4)How much will learning Oracle improve my marketability as a DBA?

Yes, developers under Oracle products and DBAs cost much more than
Microsoft ones, for example (just compare your local salaries) --it's
easy understandable because Oracle is usualy used in havy load and
mission critical applications (such as banking),
BUT! you'd better to study your local job offerings/marcket before you
invest your money and time in your idea

Good luck!

Alex
mcdba, ocp

~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~

Quote:> Hello, I am a recently laid off MS SQL DBA of five years, and I am planning to
> learn Oracle to expand my DBA skills and marketability. If anyone has done
> this, I would like to have your advice.

> 1)How difficult is it to learn Oracle?

> 2)How different is Oracle PL/SQL from T-SQL?

> 3)Was learning Oracle worth your investment in time and money?
> 4)How much will learning Oracle improve my marketability as a DBA?

> THanks
> Jinsoo
> MCSE+I, MCDBA, MCSD, CCNA

--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

To my opinion I would say:

I'm speaking as an administrator. Not as a developper.

If you are a clicker (someone that uses the mouse to perform all kind of cut
and paste operations in stead of using your fingers to actually type the
text you wan't to create) the difference of the user interface in for
instance an Unix environment will be your major "problem".
Furthermore you will find out that the administration of an Oracle database
will cost you much more time than you would have expected.
SQL server does a lot of "thinking" for you (2000 version).
In an Oracle environment you have to do more. Think more.
Forget less etc.
Creating an empty database in Oracle will coast you at least 15 minutes. In
SQL server it's done within a minute.
You will be surprised how under-developed some Oracle "things" are.
But I can recommend you to do a training since it's always usefull to look
around the corner.

Greetings,

Arno de Jong, The Netherlands.

oracle is old *!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ms is much faster, simpler, better

and with cluster-technologie it will run oracle into the ground

Oracle is as oldfashioned is novell

will you go as novell expert to ?

oracle on novell is the best to go for

Quote:> Hello, I am a recently laid off MS SQL DBA of five years, and I am
planning to
> learn Oracle to expand my DBA skills and marketability. If anyone has done
> this, I would like to have your advice.

> 1)How difficult is it to learn Oracle?

> 2)How different is Oracle PL/SQL from T-SQL?

> 3)Was learning Oracle worth your investment in time and money?

> 4)How much will learning Oracle improve my marketability as a DBA?

> THanks
> Jinsoo
> MCSE+I, MCDBA, MCSD, CCNA

wrong question in ms-sqlserver newsgroup i guess ;-)

Philippe

So-called Master-dba has a few problems and they apparently have a little to do
with technology.

In answer to the original questions.

1) From the developer standpoint they are reasonably equal in difficulty. From
the DBA standpoint Oracle is much more complex.

2) Similar. But different enough that there is as much unlearning as learning
required.

3) Compensation for Oracle developers compared to MSSQL developers of equal
experience is substantially higher. Some of which is due to the expectation of
understanding of not just Windows but also UNIX.

4) Oracle will improve your marketability as a DBA very substantially ... if you
are thinking of becoming an Oracle DBA. I doubt it will impress anyone wishing
to use you as a MSSQL DBA. Part of the reason being that the titles are the same
but the jobs very different. There is little an MSSQL DBA does that corresponds
with the expectation of an Oracle DBA.  A quick comparison of the number of
books available for Oracle DBA training versus MSSQL DBA training should give
you some insight.

Daniel Morgan

... snip ...

Quote:> Creating an empty database in Oracle will coast you at least 15 minutes.
In
> SQL server it's done within a minute.

That's because a database in Oracle is equivalent to a Server in Microsoft .
A database in Sql Server is equivalent to a tablespace+schema in Oracle. Oh,
and Oracle can create many 'Servers' per machine. Microsoft can only have 1
per machine.

Quote:

> ... snip ...

> > Creating an empty database in Oracle will coast you at least 15 minutes.
> In
> > SQL server it's done within a minute.

> That's because a database in Oracle is equivalent to a Server in Microsoft
.
> A database in Sql Server is equivalent to a tablespace+schema in Oracle.
Oh,
> and Oracle can create many 'Servers' per machine. Microsoft can only have
1
> per machine.

Really?  Might want to tell that to the vast number of people running
multiple servers per machine.

Otherwise your point is accurate.

Burt,

Quote:> That's because a database in Oracle is equivalent to a Server in Microsoft
.
> A database in Sql Server is equivalent to a tablespace+schema in Oracle.
Oh,
> and Oracle can create many 'Servers' per machine. Microsoft can only have
1
> per machine.

While it was true that versions of SQL Server prior to SQL Server 2000
supported only a single instance per machine, SQL Server 2000 supports
multiple instances per box.

But more to the point, as you pointed out, the structure of Oracle and SQL
Server re: databases and instances differ, although the end result is
effectively the same ... both Oracle and SQL Server supported multiple
databases per server.

-------------------------------------------
BP Margolin
Please reply only to the newsgroups.
When posting, inclusion of SQL (CREATE TABLE ..., INSERT ..., etc.) which
can be cut and pasted into Query Analyzer is appreciated.

Quote:

> ... snip ...

> > Creating an empty database in Oracle will coast you at least 15 minutes.
> In
> > SQL server it's done within a minute.

> That's because a database in Oracle is equivalent to a Server in Microsoft
.
> A database in Sql Server is equivalent to a tablespace+schema in Oracle.
Oh,
> and Oracle can create many 'Servers' per machine. Microsoft can only have
1
> per machine.

Quote:> Burt,

> > That's because a database in Oracle is equivalent to a Server in
Microsoft
> .
> > A database in Sql Server is equivalent to a tablespace+schema in Oracle.
> Oh,
> > and Oracle can create many 'Servers' per machine. Microsoft can only
have
> 1
> > per machine.

> While it was true that versions of SQL Server prior to SQL Server 2000
> supported only a single instance per machine, SQL Server 2000 supports
> multiple instances per box.

I stand (actually sit) corrected. Can't keep up with every new thing :)

Quote:> But more to the point, as you pointed out, the structure of Oracle and SQL
> Server re: databases and instances differ, although the end result is
> effectively the same ... both Oracle and SQL Server supported multiple
> databases per server.

How is the end result the same?  Because they offered a 2nd database (or in
Oracle terms, a 2nd tablespace+schema) ?   Sql Server is catching up some ,
but appears to always be trying to catch up with Oracle.

Now that Sql Server does like Oracle (supports multiple 'instances' or
'servers'), do they also support multiple versions (like Oracle does). I can
run Oracle7, 8, and 9 all at the same time, on the same server .

Oops, think I answered myself. Of course they don't, since they just started
allowing multiple servers in their latest version. The correct question is ,
will future versions of Sql Server allow multiple versions of servers on the
same machine (like Oracle)?

Quote:

> Now that Sql Server does like Oracle (supports multiple 'instances' or
> 'servers'), do they also support multiple versions (like Oracle does). I
can
> run Oracle7, 8, and 9 all at the same time, on the same server .

> Oops, think I answered myself. Of course they don't, since they just
started
> allowing multiple servers in their latest version. The correct question is
,
> will future versions of Sql Server allow multiple versions of servers on
the
> same machine (like Oracle)?

You mean like SQL 2000 already does?  Sorry you answered yourself wronly.

Quote:> Now that Sql Server does like Oracle (supports multiple 'instances' or
> 'servers'), do they also support multiple versions (like Oracle does).
I can
> run Oracle7, 8, and 9 all at the same time, on the same server .

> Oops, think I answered myself. Of course they don't, since they just
started
> allowing multiple servers in their latest version. The correct
question is ,
> will future versions of Sql Server allow multiple versions of servers
on the
> same machine (like Oracle)?

SQL Server currently allows multiple versions on the same server.  It is
possible to run one SQL 7 instance and multiple SQL 2000 instances
concurrently since each is a separate installation of the server
binaries.

Hope this helps.

Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP

-----------------------
SQL FAQ links (courtesy  Neil Pike):

http://www.ntfaq.com/Articles/Index.cfm?DepartmentID=800
http://www.sqlserverfaq.com
http://www.mssqlserver.com/faq
-----------------------