Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [baseball-databank] Digest Number 778

Expand Messages
  • P Mondout
    With regards to Oracle, M$ wisely never positioned Access as a competitor to anything from Oracle. As Oracle s database cost about $5K per seat more than
    Message 1 of 5 , May 18, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      With regards to Oracle, M$ wisely never positioned Access as a
      competitor to anything from Oracle. As Oracle's database cost about
      $5K per seat more than Access or even FoxPro and was widely seen as
      the least user-friendly major database then in existence, it would
      have been a joke on multiple levels. SQL Server is the product that
      has been eating Oracle's market share for the past decade and it too
      is available in a full-featured, popular, and free edition:
      http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/express/sql/download/

      Thanks to the success of MySQL, users have many free high-end
      databases to choose from. They all are award-winning, have many books
      written about them, and are well-supported. Which one they choose
      largely depends upon which evil empire they wish to be sucked into.

      --
      Patrick Mondout
      Super70s Baseball
      http://Super70s.com/Baseball
    • keith_woolner
      ... Agreed. They were addressing totally different markets. ... While I agree that Access is easier to learn and was (and probably is) superior in usability,
      Message 2 of 5 , May 18, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In baseball-databank@yahoogroups.com, "P Mondout" <awesome80s@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > With regards to Oracle, M$ wisely never positioned Access as a
        > competitor to anything from Oracle.

        Agreed. They were addressing totally different markets.

        > As Oracle's database cost about
        > $5K per seat more than Access or even FoxPro and was widely seen as
        > the least user-friendly major database then in existence, it would
        > have been a joke on multiple levels.

        While I agree that Access is easier to learn and was (and probably is)
        superior in usability, the price comparison is way off. Oracle has
        had a full-featured Personal Oracle edition for Windows for about 10
        years priced at about $400 (it's still available and doesn't have the
        limits on database size that the free version I posted earlier does).
        It's when you get to the full blown server editions intended to run
        on hardware to support hundreds or thousands of users that the price
        shoots up, but that's not applicable to the scenarios we're discussing.

        > SQL Server is the product that
        > has been eating Oracle's market share for the past decade

        On Windows, it's true that SQL Server is the market share leader. In
        the entire database market (covering all platforms), IBM DB2 and
        Oracle each have roughly a third of the market, with Microsoft
        trailing at about 20%. And on Linux (which a fair number of the tech
        enthusiasts on this list may use), Oracle has about 80% of the market.
        These figures are about a year old, but it's what I could find with a
        quick web search.

        > Thanks to the success of MySQL, users have many free high-end
        > databases to choose from. They all are award-winning, have many books
        > written about them, and are well-supported.

        Agreed. Learning any of them would be a better move than focusing on
        Access, if you're going to pick one to learn, and want to not only
        make the best use of the baseball data, but also develop some
        technical skills that could help you in your career (assuming you're
        in IT/software). If that doesn't describe you, then that advice isn't
        appropriate.

        MySQL isn't great if you're doing complex joins or analysis, but for
        simple manipulation and serving web content, it's fast and free (BP
        uses both -- MySQL to power the web site, and Oracle to do the heavy
        duty stat crunching). Also interesting to note that Oracle recently
        purchased Innobase, which built one of the key components of MySQL.
        All the big players (IBM, MS, Oracle) are watching the open source
        database space pretty closely, and I wouldn't be surprised to see more
        shakeups to come.

        > Which one they choose largely depends upon which evil empire they
        wish to be sucked into.

        :-)

        Keith
      • Craig Deelsnyder
        First time replying, I ll be leaving the group soon as I don t have much a chance to check the messages anymore. But don t know if it s been said, but MS SQL
        Message 3 of 5 , May 18, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          First time replying, I'll be leaving the group soon as I don't have
          much a chance to check the messages anymore. But don't know if it's
          been said, but MS SQL Server 2005 Express is rather robust for a free
          DB. It has all you need plus stored procs for those who do some of
          that as well. Plus the Studio tool is free as well. I work with the
          Enterprise Edition in my line of work, and Express did all I needed in
          most of my side-work.

          Also, did anyone ever mention here the 'Baseball Hacks' book by
          O'Reilly that was released in Feb.?

          http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/baseballhks/

          Has a bunch of stats-keeping techie stuff, like where to get
          databases, how to write scripts to track stats, load stats, etc. I
          think most of it's Perl scripts using MySQL, but it came in handy for
          me when I was building a stats database for our wiffleball league
          (yes, wiffleball!). The schemas, etc. gave me a good start on
          design...may be a little intimidating in parts for not so tech savvy
          people, but a cool book...

          anyway, sorry if duplicating info shared before on the board or
          slightly OT...all I can contribute before leaving :) Take care
          y'all..

          deesnider


          On 5/18/06, keith_woolner <keith@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          > --- In baseball-databank@yahoogroups.com, "P Mondout" <awesome80s@...>
          > wrote:
          > >
          > > With regards to Oracle, M$ wisely never positioned Access as a
          > > competitor to anything from Oracle.
          >
          > Agreed. They were addressing totally different markets.
          >
          > > As Oracle's database cost about
          > > $5K per seat more than Access or even FoxPro and was widely seen as
          > > the least user-friendly major database then in existence, it would
          > > have been a joke on multiple levels.
          >
          > While I agree that Access is easier to learn and was (and probably is)
          > superior in usability, the price comparison is way off. Oracle has
          > had a full-featured Personal Oracle edition for Windows for about 10
          > years priced at about $400 (it's still available and doesn't have the
          > limits on database size that the free version I posted earlier does).
          > It's when you get to the full blown server editions intended to run
          > on hardware to support hundreds or thousands of users that the price
          > shoots up, but that's not applicable to the scenarios we're discussing.
          >
          > > SQL Server is the product that
          > > has been eating Oracle's market share for the past decade
          >
          > On Windows, it's true that SQL Server is the market share leader. In
          > the entire database market (covering all platforms), IBM DB2 and
          > Oracle each have roughly a third of the market, with Microsoft
          > trailing at about 20%. And on Linux (which a fair number of the tech
          > enthusiasts on this list may use), Oracle has about 80% of the market.
          > These figures are about a year old, but it's what I could find with a
          > quick web search.
          >
          > > Thanks to the success of MySQL, users have many free high-end
          > > databases to choose from. They all are award-winning, have many books
          > > written about them, and are well-supported.
          >
          > Agreed. Learning any of them would be a better move than focusing on
          > Access, if you're going to pick one to learn, and want to not only
          > make the best use of the baseball data, but also develop some
          > technical skills that could help you in your career (assuming you're
          > in IT/software). If that doesn't describe you, then that advice isn't
          > appropriate.
          >
          > MySQL isn't great if you're doing complex joins or analysis, but for
          > simple manipulation and serving web content, it's fast and free (BP
          > uses both -- MySQL to power the web site, and Oracle to do the heavy
          > duty stat crunching). Also interesting to note that Oracle recently
          > purchased Innobase, which built one of the key components of MySQL.
          > All the big players (IBM, MS, Oracle) are watching the open source
          > database space pretty closely, and I wouldn't be surprised to see more
          > shakeups to come.
          >
          > > Which one they choose largely depends upon which evil empire they
          > wish to be sucked into.
          >
          > :-)
          >
          > Keith
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > http://www.baseball-databank.org/
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > SPONSORED LINKS
          > Mlb baseball Major league baseball Youth baseball
          > Major league baseball ticket Major league baseball umpires Baseball equipment
          >
          > ________________________________
          YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
          >
          >
          > Visit your group "baseball-databank" on the web.
          >
          > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > baseball-databank-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
          >
          > ________________________________
        • Dereck L. Dietz
          Off the Oracle Technology Network full-featured software can be legally downloaded. I downloaded the full version of Oracle 9i (database and application
          Message 4 of 5 , May 18, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Off the Oracle Technology Network full-featured software can be legally downloaded.  I downloaded the full version of Oracle 9i (database and application server) a number of years ago to keep my skills current.
            ----- Original Message -----
            Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 4:28 PM
            Subject: [baseball-databank] Re: databases

            --- In baseball-databank@yahoogroups.com, "P Mondout" <awesome80s@...>
            wrote:
            >
            > With regards to Oracle, M$ wisely never positioned Access as a
            > competitor to anything from Oracle.

            Agreed.  They were addressing totally different markets.

            > As Oracle's database cost about
            > $5K per seat more than Access or even FoxPro and was widely seen as
            > the least user-friendly major database then in existence, it would
            > have been a joke on multiple levels.

            While I agree that Access is easier to learn and was (and probably is)
            superior in usability, the price comparison is way off.  Oracle has
            had a full-featured Personal Oracle edition for Windows for about 10
            years priced at about $400 (it's still available and doesn't have the
            limits on database size that the free version I posted earlier does).
            It's when you get to the full blown server editions intended to run
            on hardware to support hundreds or thousands of users that the price
            shoots up, but that's not applicable to the scenarios we're discussing.

            > SQL Server is the product that
            > has been eating Oracle's market share for the past decade

            On Windows, it's true that SQL Server is the market share leader.  In
            the entire database market (covering all platforms), IBM DB2 and
            Oracle each have roughly a third of the market, with Microsoft
            trailing at about 20%.  And on Linux (which a fair number of the tech
            enthusiasts on this list may use), Oracle has about 80% of the market.
            These figures are about a year old, but it's what I could find with a
            quick web search.

            > Thanks to the success of MySQL, users have many free high-end
            > databases to choose from. They all are award-winning, have many books
            > written about them, and are well-supported.

            Agreed.  Learning any of them would be a better move than focusing on
            Access, if you're going to pick one to learn, and want to not only
            make the best use of the baseball data, but also develop some
            technical skills that could help you in your career (assuming you're
            in IT/software).  If that doesn't describe you, then that advice isn't
            appropriate.

            MySQL isn't great if you're doing complex joins or analysis, but for
            simple manipulation and serving web content, it's fast and free (BP
            uses both -- MySQL to power the web site, and Oracle to do the heavy
            duty stat crunching).  Also interesting to note that Oracle recently
            purchased Innobase, which built one of the key components of MySQL.
            All the big players (IBM, MS, Oracle) are watching the open source
            database space pretty closely, and I wouldn't be surprised to see more
            shakeups to come.

            > Which one they choose largely depends upon which evil empire they
            wish to be sucked into.

            :-)

            Keith




          • Ben Matasar
            I find PostgreSQL to be a fine database as well, getting you partway to Oracle. It s stable and has lots of extensions for custom datatypes and etc. Is
            Message 5 of 5 , May 18, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              I find PostgreSQL to be a fine database as well, getting you partway
              to Oracle. It's stable and has lots of extensions for custom
              datatypes and etc.

              Is anybody out there using Postgres with BDB or retrosheet data?

              Ben
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.