| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
 |
 | |||
| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
|
| |||
Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> RE: Clash of the DBs in eWeek
In additon.. here's a quote from the article:
"Microsoft and Oracle both declined to be involved in the test-with their database servers, we did all tuning ourselves with no vendor input."
Not at all bad for Oracle to score high without any 'expert' tuning advice.
But was this test worth ignoring for Larry??
The on-line poll on the web site was interesiting, though.. (Which server database is most critical to you organization?). Oracle 33.26% MySQL 19.99% SQLServer 15.91% when I voted..
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 12:08 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
At first glance it looks like they could have done more to tune Oracle. Certain tables could have been cached (or buffer pools could have been used). They're only using a 4K db block so it would have been nice to see tests with 8K and 16K db blocks. Sort area size may need tuning. I'd like to see some tkprof on the queries and see what the most expensive queries are in terms of CPU, I/O, and number of executions. It would be nice to see database results on Linux... It would be cool to see what some focused tuning efforts could do but who has time for that?
Anyone have any other tuning suggestions for eWeek?
Time for the tuning DBA guru's to shine. :-)
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 9:53 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Anybody happen to see the cover story on the 02/25/2002 iss of eWeek titled "Database Clash"?
The pretty graphs say that their tests showed that Oracle and MySQL rocked the other DBs they tested (including MS SQueaL Server). So I investigated. I went to http://www.eweek.com/ and downloaded the "Online Exclusive: Download our configuration and tuning scripts".
According to the Oracle setup docs in there, they're NOT using MTS and processes in init.ora is 150. So then how did they test for 1000 "concurrent Web clients"?
Anyone have a thought?
Rich Jesse System/Database Administrator Rich.Jesse_at_qtiworld.com Quad/Tech International, Sussex, WI USA
Fat City Network Services -- (858) 538-5051 FAX: (858) 538-5051 San Diego, California -- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists --------------------------------------------------------------------To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
Fat City Network Services -- (858) 538-5051 FAX: (858) 538-5051 San Diego, California -- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists --------------------------------------------------------------------To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
Fat City Network Services -- (858) 538-5051 FAX: (858) 538-5051 San Diego, California -- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists --------------------------------------------------------------------To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing). Received on Thu Feb 28 2002 - 14:18:05 CST
 |
 |