In article <gjWr4.236$mjh.188239872_at_news.frii.net>,
Nicholas Dronen <ndronen_at_io.frii.com> wrote:
> In comp.unix.aix Frank Hubeny <fhubeny_at_ntsource.com> wrote:
> > I heard about a half year ago that Oracle was offering a reward of a
> > million dollars to anyone who could prove that SQLServer did not
run 100
> > times slower than Oracle.
>
> > At the time I heard this, I suspected that SQLServer might be at
most 10
> > times slower, but the only way for Microsoft to win such a challenge
> > would be to actually score faster than Oracle.
>
> The crux of the challenge was a single, fairly complex SQL query, not
> a vague notion like "this complex piece of software is 100 times
slower
> than this other equally complex piece of software." That is, the test
> was of the capability of the database to handle a seemingly difficult
> operation quickly. It was a test of the prudence of the data
structures
> and algorithms of the database software. That someone can put
together
> a cluster with three times the number of processors (which
interestingly
> doesn't even *double* the performance of the IBM S80) to make things
seem
> zippy doesn't change the unmet status of Oracle's original challenge.
>
> Regards,
>
> Nicholas Dronen
> ndronen_at_frii.com
>
The challenge basically comes down to the fact that 8i supports
materialized views while SQL 7.0 does not. Try running the comparison
with SQL 2000 and 8i and see what you get. Ellison likes to do some
slinging and the problem is people buy into it without looking into the
facts. Why not run the same query on 8 that does not support
materialized views and see how that stacks up to SQL 7.0. Wait till you
can get a 32-processor x86 platform before you go bashing SQL Server. I
think you will be quite surprised. 8 processors on SQL 2000 gets about
48K on the TPC-C so 32 processors (probably running faster than the
550Mhz ones) should come close to some of the other non-clustered
solutions. By the end of the year you will probably see systems like
this. Also note the price difference in these benchmarks and that it
is a shared nothing cluster.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Received on Mon Feb 21 2000 - 11:25:26 CST
