Date:         Wed, 12 Oct 2005 14:42:12 -0400
Reply-To:     Dianne Rhodes <RHODESD1@WESTAT.COM>
Sender:       "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From:         Dianne Rhodes <RHODESD1@WESTAT.COM>
Subject:      Re: SAS vs. SQL
Comments: To: David L Cassell <davidlcassell@msn.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

> David L Cassell wrote:
>
> Lots of people use Oracle and SAS together.  Just ask the
> pharma people, who are likely to be running Oracle Clinical
> for data storage and SAS for analysis. I don't object to
> Oracle.  But I do object to the either/or attitude that you
> could toss SAS and keep Oracle and still somehow get
> statistical analyses that would satisfy, say, the FDA.
>

Yeah, Dave SAS and Oracle are great together.  I recently updated my
paper "Migrate to Oracle?  I need my SAS!" paper for presentation.  I
took all the version 6 stuff out. With version 8/9 you can pretty much
treat an Oracle DB like a SAS dataset.  But it is still faster to
extract a mirror image of you DB and put it in SAS.  I think the
either/or attitude comes from the price tag of the software,  both
Oracle and SAS.  I suspect the Oracle sales people convince the Suits
that "you don't need SAS anymore."  Ask Bernard Tremblay.  I wonder
whatever happened to that insurance company he worked for Le Capitale?
(I certainly don't think the SAS people are saying "You don't need
Oracle anymore.")

Dianne Louise Rhodes
Sr. Systems Analyst
Westat