How Practical is a Federated Database?

Looks like the "Federated" Database scene is here to stay. Now IBM is in the picture and they did it on Win2K too: http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,2599679,00.html

I believe IBM's DB2 is Oracle's greatest competition.

So how practical is a Federated database? Anyone?

Steve Orr

-----Original Message-----
From: root_at_fatcity.com [mailto:root_at_fatcity.com]On Behalf Of Kirsh, Gary Sent: Friday, July 07, 2000 2:04 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Subject: RE: Slightly OT : Latest tpC benchmark results - without Oracle!

Here are the details of the "withdrawal": http://www.zdii.com/industry_list.asp?mode=news&doc_id=ZE504717

Gary Kirsh
Next Extent, Inc.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John J. Kanagaraj /FIC321,OPENMAIL/o=BRUNEI SHELL PETROLEUM SERIA
> On Behalf Of John J. Kanagaraj /FIC321,OPENMAIL/o=BRUNEI SHELL PETROLEUM
> SERIA
> Sent: Friday, July 07, 2000 11:34 AM
> To: oracle-l_at_fatcity.com; oracledba_at_quickdoc.co.uk
> Subject: Slightly OT : Latest tpC benchmark results - without Oracle!
>
> Hi Listers,
>
> Came across this note recently. IBM and Micro$oft (unlikely
> combination!) broke the 400000 tpmC mark using a DB2 Database.
>
> IBM, Intel, Microsoft Eclipse Sun Microsystems and Oracle with World's
> Fastest Commercial Server Cluster (9.6KB)
>
> http://isource.ibm.com/cgi-bin/goto?it=usa_press&on=2000070605
>
> Earlier on, M$ had announced that they had broken 152207 tpmC (at
> $18.93/tpmC) and 227079 tpmC (at $19.12/tpmC) with the Compaq Proliant
> 8500-64P and -96P respectively on 17/Feb/00 and then WITHDREW the
> result on 30/June/00. See
> http://www.tpc.org/new_result/c-withdrawn-results.idc
>
> John Kanagaraj
> Brunei Shell Petroleum
> http://www.geocities.com/john_sharmila
>
> God so loved the world that He didn't send a committee! (See John 3:16
> for details)
> ** Opinions expressed here are solely mine and not necessarily those of
Received on Mon Jul 10 2000 - 11:17:22 CDT