It's to be expected. Ask a handful of database professionals whether they prefer Oracle over Microsoft SQL Server and you're guaranteed to start a heated debate over the merits of each. One will rattle off performance benchmarks. Another will mention cost savings. And what about scripts? The GUI? Who knew database administrators were so passionate?

"In a nutshell, I'm really not sure why anyone uses Oracle. Yes, performance can be really good, and there's the age-old argument of write-ahead logging vs. 'write after' logging—but hey, NASDAQ uses SQL Server, so the question of scalability and reliability has really been answered," argues Michael K. Campbell, an author and consultant in Sandpoint, Idaho, specializing in SQL Server, ASP.NET, IIS and .NET.

"In terms of administration, my experience is that SQL Server is light years ahead of Oracle," Campbell continues, contending it's also much cheaper. "I feel you're almost guaranteed to need a full time DBA if you're relying heavily upon Oracle for any key business functionality on the back-end. With SQL Server, I've got a number of clients with decently large databases (one client, for example has a 500GB-plus database while another, a hospital, has more than 2,000 simultaneous users and 200GB-plus databases), and they tell me they run pretty well without dedicated DBAs. Yes, they occasionally need outside experts/consultants like me to come in and help them with some management or performance problems—but I think that with Oracle you'll typically need that in addition to a full time DBA."

Granted, the Oracle acolytes hew to some pretty high-flying benchmarks: Donald K. Burleson, of www.dba-oracle.com, asks if SQL Server can match Oracle10g's quarter-million transactions per minute on a Windows Server® with 16 Intel Itanium 2 processors. But Campbell, too, has a need for speed: "Performance-wise, SQL Server 2005 is pretty compelling. I've experienced an 18 to 25 percent performance boost over SQL Server 2000—based solely on the new coding implementation and some careful planning/consideration by our SQL Server team."

Oracle has the greater market share among enterprise customers. But Microsoft is so tickled with its new version of SQL Server, it's hoping to attract those who want a unified Office solution, who are keen to take advantage of some of the database's built-in business intelligence and reporting features, or who need to put some of their DBA resources to pasture. Few ISVs deny the attractiveness of the first three points, but many are asking: Is this release of SQL Server finally robust enough to support the kinds of transaction loads typically found in Oracle installations? And just how onerous is the switch from Oracle to SQL Server 2005?

No More FUD
The biggest misconception about SQL Server isn't performance-related—it's mental: the fear that going from Oracle to SQL Server requires learning a whole new DBA mindset. Redmond reassures: It's very easy to go between the two different databases, and there are plenty of ways to make longstanding Oracle adherents feel not only comfortable but highly conversant in the new platform.

Key to a smooth transition is Microsoft's NXT initiative, which helps ISVs with partially-funded development services via the migration expertise of such firms as Scalability Experts. Not only a SQL Server systems integrator, this firm has also written much of Microsoft's architectural content and offers a two-day, onsite design session focusing on how SQL Server can fit an ISV's existing customer solutions. A migration roadshow in June 2007 highlighted the expertise of Joe Yong, Scalability Experts' genial chief architect.

"In the migration space, we've built a training curriculum and written papers and guides—and we don't just do it, we teach others how to do it. We'll show ISVs how to round up a bunch of Oracle DBAs, and tell them: This little thing called SQL Server that you used to view with disdain? It can do almost all of what you need now except you don't have to stay in back in the data center till 10pm nightly."