RE: Compare between Microsoft SQL Server 7.0 and Oracle 8.x

In article <#yd5i$1e#GA.255_at_cppssbbsa02.microsoft.com>,   "VLDBA" <kk_at_interpres.es> wrote:
> Everything of that is absolutely true.
>
> Just one point, in the next two months will appear the 8-way
> technology with the Profusion chipset (http://www.compaq.com/8-way),
> and it looks that it will offer a very good performance (close to the
> linear scalability) on NT4.0 & NT2K with 8 PIII 500Mhz, and of course
> at a lower price that a full powered Unix Machine running Oracle. It
> could be interesting to take a look at the TPC benchmarks when they
> will be published.

NT 4.0 offering near-linear scalability? I don't think so. May be NT 3000 will offer something like that, but I don't think that either NT 4.0 or NT 2000 will be able to do so. If you want near-linear scalability on an 8-way Compaq machine, my advice is to opt for Intel Solaris.
>
> Yuri Budilov <yuri.budilov_at_computershare.com.au> escribió en el
> mensaje de noticias 3701dc53.0_at_sydslinux01.syd.computershare.com.au...
> > on a single non clustered box SMP (4 CPU) NT Server, there is no
> published
> > Oracle8.0 TPC-C result, that I can find. In its absense I can only
> assume
> > that MS SQL Server 7.0 is faster for OLTP and similar work on NT
> only.
> >
> > Given that MS SQL Server 7.0 has published TPC-C numbers and Oracle8
> has
> > none (on NT non-cluster config), I would guess that Oracle8 would
> not win on
> > TPC-C performance or price/performance, else you can bet a lot of
> dollars
> > that Larry will crow about it a lot.
> >
> > If you want to go higher that a single 4-CPU non-clustered NT4.0 box
> allows,
> > then you would have to go Unix or VMS or MVS or AS/400 or Tandem or
> > .......On Unix Oracle8 is a tough one to beat.
> >
> > --
> > Yuri Budilov (expressing personal opinions only)
> > Don Macpherson wrote in message
> <7drosd$o0g$1_at_autumn.news.rcn.net>...
> > |Microsoft's response to the challenge is at
> > |http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/1999/03-16sql.htm
> > |
> > |BTW, http://www.tpc.org will show that Oracle has the highest
> number, but
> > |that SQL Server has the best price/performance ratio, so it all
> depends on
> > |your needs.
> > |
> > |Oracle's fastest number (115395) was apparently produced on a $12.2
> million
> > |config.
> > |SQL Server's fastest number (23460) was apparently produced on a
> $429K
> > |config.
> > |
> > |Hmm, spend 28.4 times as much and have it run 4.9 times as fast.
> > |If you need that topend performance, I guess you pay the premium.
> > |
> > |I don't think I have ever seen any numbers for comparing the two
> databases
> > |ON THE SAME HARDWARE, which to some people, would be a better
> indicator of
> > |which one is "faster". (if it is actually relevant)
> > |
> > |Don Macpherson
> > |
> > |Dr. Christian Boettger wrote in message
> > |<7DrCGGOEnAB_at_Christian.Boettger.dialin.t-online.de>...
> > |>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > |>
> > |>In /comp/databases/ms-sqlserver on 30.03.99
> > |>warweg (Werner Warweg) uttered
> > |>on the subject "Compare between Microsoft SQL Server 7.0 and
> Oracle 8.x":
> > |>> > Does anyone have any experience wich database is faster,
> MS-SQL or
> > |>> > Oracle? Thanks in advance.
> > |>>
> > |>> Kann jemand sagen, welche Datenbank schneller ist, MS-SQL oder
> Oracle?
> > |>
> > |>MS SQL 6.5 or 7.0?
> > |>
> > |>anyway, have a look at www.oracle.com and look for the 1 Million-$
> > |>Oracle Challenge...
> > |>
> > |>I'd guess, Oracle 7.x and 8.x are *a lot* faster than M$ SQL...
> > |>
> > |>
> > |>MfG / Regards
> > |> Christian
> > |>
> > |
> > |
> > |
> >
> >
>
>

Mladen Gogala

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own Received on Thu Apr 01 1999 - 09:47:40 CST