I am not fanatic on any database but If only to determine variations between suppliers.
For example, I personally use mostly Oracle and that i observe that others (MySQL, SQL Server, PostgreSQL, ...) canrrrt do:
Exactly the same for SQL Server, that others canrrrt do:
Oracle's CONNECT BY is really a limited version of normal SQL's recursive SQL. DB2s and MSSQLs recursive "common table expressions" are a little harder to code but offer more energy than Oracle's CONNECT BY. (The following version of Oracle's database should come on recursive SQL, though.)
Expensive back is really a fantastic Oracle feature which reflects how deep MVCC is made into Oracle. MVCC is when Oracle handles concurrency, instead of traditional pessimistic securing and concurrency handling is among the places where there's lots of distinction between databases (although most DBMSes are moving from concurrency exclusively according to pessimistic securing). The truth that Oracle develops to firmly on MVCC is really a big benefit, for me.
Regarding TOP results: All DBMSes have ways to get this done.
Aside from that:
SQL-smart: Oracle has got the innovative and standards-compliant datetime handling. Oracle is strong on OLAP-related functions (but so might be both DB2 and MSSQL OLAP functions is definitely an area in which the free DBMSes have experienced some trouble maintaining). Recently, Oracle appears to possess essentially overlooked the SQL standard, for the reason that its standards compliance is stagnating (as opposed to MSSQL, for instance, that has enhanced a great deal here) I blame this on arrogance because of Oracle's large share of the market.
Conceptually: Oracle and MySQL are good examples of two very techniques used in handling databases. In Oracle, it requires forever to produce a database, along with a database is an extremely heavy weight object, so within the Oracle world, a database has a tendency to contain lots of tables, possibly in various "schemas". In MySQL, a database is an extremely light-weight object, so MySQLers generally have many databases which equally less tables in each (that is most likely why they do not appear to complain about MySQL's insufficient schemas).
Oracle (like DB2) is a good example of an DBMS which almost includes a whole operating-system: It works many features that the DBMS like MSSQL/MySQL/PostgreSQL would allow the operating system's filesystem and virtual memory systems handle. Personally, I favor the second approach, but Oracle's way makes Oracle perform greatly exactly the same whichever operating-system has been used.
In comparison to MSSQL, Oracle operates on a lot more platforms (like the majority of other DBMSes MSSQL is most likely the only real important DBMS which only operates on Home windows).
Oracle offers some other method of clustering than other DBMSes: RAC. I have heard many horror tales about RAC, but when you will get it working, it's most likely fair to express that you've a very effective (and costly) clustering solution.
Regarding management, I've found Oracle to become remarkably complex to handle, in comparison to many other DBMSes.
Then, you will find serious prices variations, obviously: Oracle's prices is very high, and rising.
SQL Server includes a built-in Auto Incrementing feature you can include to some column when you wish an easy incrementing integer for any table.
In Oracle, you have to produce a sequence and apply the right trigger to be increment itself.