| 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: (Fwd) Oracle vs. SQL Server on Windows 2000
> 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).
I don't know if that means .net shows promise, the Microsoft web servers probably aren't too concerned with java performance.
Microsoft already announced they will drop java as soon as they are legally allowed to.
Microsoft seems to be going it's own way, One Microsoft Way.
Regards,
Patrice Boivin
Systems Analyst (Oracle Certified DBA)
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 6:37 PM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Subject: (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).
-- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com -- Author: Boivin, Patrice J INET: BoivinP_at_mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca 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 Jun 20 2002 - 09:58:25 CDT
 |
 |