| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
 |
 | |||
| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
|
| |||
Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> (Fwd) Oracle vs. SQL Server on Windows 2000
Date sent: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 18:57:29 -0700
for those that are always asking for sql product comparisons, see below.
---excerpt---
http://www.eweek.com/article/0,3658,s=708&a=23115,00.asp
(
ftp://ftp.eweek.com/pub/eweek/pdf/printpub/benchmark/dbbenchmark_v1
.zip )
> February 25, 2002
> Server Databases Clash
> By Timothy Dyck
>
> Online exclusive: Dig deeper into the eWEEK Labs/PC Labs database
> benchmark by downloading our database configuration and tuning
> scripts, JSP code and spreadsheets containing expanded benchmark
> results. Finding solid performance data to help choose among competing
> technologies is as tough as creating the data in the first place. This
> is particularly true in the database space, where database vendors
> routinely use no-benchmarking clauses in their license agreements to
> block publication of benchmarks of which they do not approve.
>
> Still, this is data that customers should have to make informed
> purchases, and, as we've found again and again at eWEEK Labs,
> benchmarking is an unmatched technique for flushing out unexpected
> technical strengths and failings that can make or break a project.
>
> For four weeks last month and early this month, eWEEK and sister
> publication PC Magazine carried out a comprehensive benchmark of the
> latest available versions of five server databases. These tests showed
> us on a level playing field which database performed best when used
> with a Java-based application server. We also were able to evaluate
> different approaches to database server tuning that can help every one
> of these products perform better.
>
> To our knowledge, this is the first time a computer publication has
> published database benchmark results tested on the same hardware since
> PC Magazine did so in October 1993.
>
> We tested IBM's DB2 7.2 with FixPack 5, Microsoft Corp.'s SQL Server
> 2000 Enterprise Edition with Service Pack 2, MySQL AB's MySQL 4.0.1
> Max, Oracle Corp.'s Oracle9i Enterprise Edition 9.0.1.1.1 and Sybase
> Inc.'s ASE (Adaptive Server Enterprise) 12.5.0.1.
>
> Overall, Oracle9i and MySQL had the best performance and scalability
> (see charts, images 1 and 2 in slideshow), with Oracle9i just very
> slightly ahead of MySQL for most of the run. ASE, DB2, Oracle9i and
> MySQL finished in a dead heat up to about 550 Web users. At this
> point, ASE's performance leveled off at 500 pages per second, about 100
> pages per second less than Oracle9i's and MySQL's leveling-off point
> of about 600 pages per second. DB2's performance dropped substantially,
> leveling off at 200 pages per second under high loads.
>
> Due to its significant JDBC (Java Database Connectivity) driver
> problems, SQL Server was limited to about 200 pages per second for the
> entire test.
...
> As an extra data point, we also rewrote the benchmark in ASP .Net and,
> due to time constraints, tested just SQL Server on this platform. We
> stress that the results of this test are not comparable to the Java
> benchmark results because the ASP .Net test used a different Web
> server (Internet Information Services 5.0), different application
> engine (ASP .Net) and different database driver (OLE DB).
>
> However, our results do provide evidence that this all-Microsoft
> software stack can produce excellent performance, peaking at just
> under 870 pages per second (see charts, images 3 and 4 in slideshow).
...
> Drivers the untold story
>
> To our surprise, database connectivity drivers proved to be the
> biggest source of problems.
>
> Of the five databases we tested, only Oracle9i and MySQL were able to
> run our Nile application as originally written for 8 hours without
> problems. DB2's JDBC driver doesn't support updatable result sets (a
> JDBC 2.0 feature), so we had to open all result sets using the
> CONCUR_READ_ONLY attribute (the only attribute the IBM driver would
> accept) and do updates using SQL update statements. With this change,
> we could run the application. IBM's driver then also made it through
> our 8-hour stability test.
>
> With Sybase's JConnect 5.5 driver, we discovered that when
> applications request result sets that have bidirectional cursors,
> JConnect stores the entire result set in client memory to speed
> subsequent cursor repositioning commands. (We were using bidirectional
> cursors to let users page forward and back through the list of books
> that matched their search criteria.)
...
> Out of all the drivers we used, Microsoft's new JDBC driver had the
> most problems. It's still a beta driver in the form distributed on
> Microsoft's Web site, but it's not a new product per se, because it's
> based on code licensed from DataDirect Technologies Inc., which has
> had the leading third-party SQL Server JDBC driver for some years now.
>
> Providing and supporting its own JDBC driver is a very welcome move,
> and Microsoft officials informed us last month that they had 70,000
> downloads of the driver so far, so there is considerable customer
> interest in it. However, the driver, in both Beta 1 and Beta 2 forms
> (we tested both), has serious performance and stability problems.
...
---end---
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 Wed Jun 19 2002 - 16:37:11 CDT
 |
 |