Re: Microsoft destroys TPC-C records!

To answer your question, Oracle had both DB2 UDB and Informix as real competition prior to SQL Server 7. And as of now, if you ask any of the major consulting firms like Gartner, Meta, Giga or if you cruise the press, you will find that DB2 UDB is still "real" competition for Oracle ... very real.

tandym_at_hotmail.com wrote:

> It proves which company has the better programmers. Perhaps benchmarks
> aren't applicable to the average business owner or IT manager- but they
> _sound_ impressive. And until sqlserver7 - what real competition did
> Oracle have? Sybase? *guffaw* So, with this in mind, the benchmarks
> keep the blood of creativity flowing - competition grows stiff, and
> that _IS_ good for the consumer, because it gives Oracle reason to make
> their product better, faster.
>
> sonya
>
> In article <38B3E9A6.90B0105_at_us.ibm.com>,
> Larry Edelstein <lsedels_at_us.ibm.com> wrote:
> > This is a perfect example of why you just can't use benchmarks as a
> credible criteria (my opinion) to make a decision on a database.
> Benchmarks are intended to demonstrate the raw processing power and
> efficiency of a solution. When you start to do things like use
> materialized views, you are not doing so. True ... you are using a
> great feature of a db that has practical application. But to point to
> benchmarks like this and say that they are a reason to support a
> particular solution, is ridiculous. In this case,
> > they don't even afford a valid basis for comparison between database
> vendors (although on the other side, I suppose it also points to rel db
> vendors who don't have features that others do). That is why TPC has
> modified it's strategy and has initiated the new TPC H and R
> benchmarks. To point to current "leaders" in the benchmark race and say
> that they are the winners is shortsighted ... this is nothing more than
> a contest the results of which will change over and over again during
> the course of the year. And in
> > addition, the workloads may not be truely representative of your
> workload, so what does it prove?
> >
> > Norris wrote:
> >
> > > TPC-D history
> > >
> > > "Oracle Million Dollar Challenge," which Oracle CEO Larry Ellison
> issued to Microsoft at Fall Comdex. Ellison said Oracle would pay $1
> million to any person who could demonstrate that SQL Server 7.0 is not
> at least 100 times slower than the fastest Oracle database when running
> a query against a standard decision-support benchmark. That standard
> benchmark, the TPC-D suite managed by the Transaction Processing
> Performance Council (TPC), has long stood as the most commonly accepted
> measure of decision-support
> > > performance. (Another benchmark developed by the OLAP Council is
> more specifically designed to measure OLAP engine performance.)
> > >
> > > Following the challenge, the SQL Server 7.0 team tried to poke
> holes in it, noting, for instance, that the system on which Oracle had
> set the record was a $9.66-million behemoth consisting of a 64-
> processor Sun UltraEnterprise 10000 "Starfire" Server. Microsoft's main
> counterattack, however, was directed against the TPC-D benchmark
> itself. Although the benchmark was developed to measure different
> systems' abilities to process complex, ad hoc queries, Microsoft
> charged that Oracle and other vendors develope
> > > d a way to crack the test. The database vendors knew the nature of
> the questions the TPC-D benchmark would pose, Microsoft said, and they
> used "materialized-view" techniques to pre-compute summary tables
> containing the data the tests would request. This pre-computation,
> Microsoft contends, significantly increased the loading time of the
> databases, but the TPC-D benchmarks didn't measure the loading time,
> only the execution time.
> > >
> > > Sour grapes? Many thought so, since SQL Server doesn't support
> materialized views (though Microsoft will add that feature to the next
> version of its database). However, it turns out that even the TPC
> itself was having second thoughts about the value of its TPC-D
> benchmarks. Performance times had dropped precipitously during 1998 for
> the very reason Microsoft cited--vendors were pre-computing the
> answers. As the TPC Administrator notes on the organization's Web site
> (www.tpc.org), an effort now is underway
> > > to break the TPC-D into two separate benchmark tests, one that
> assumes pre-computation has occurred and one that gets back to the
> original goal of measuring response time to truly ad hoc queries.
> > >
> > > Still, the SQL Server team wanted some way to prove its product's
> performance, even if it couldn't use materialized views to answer the
> challenge Oracle posed. In mid-March, the team announced it had decided
> to use OLAP techniques rather than materialized views to run the
> specific TPC-D query cited in the Oracle challenge. As opposed to
> materialized views, which pre-compute summary tables based on advanced
> knowledge of the nature of the likely queries, OLAP is more of a post-
> load, on-the-fly technique to
> > > compute such values. Working with partner Hewlett-Packard,
> Microsoft constructed a 1TB OLAP cube based on the TPC-D query.
> According to Microsoft, the resulting system matched or exceeded the
> performance of the Oracle system, but cost only about one-twentieth as
> much.
> > >
> > > http://webevents.broadcast.com/microsoft/gettingresults/summit.html
> > >
> > > In comp.databases.sybase 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
> > >
> > > --
> > > JULY
> >
> >
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Received on Wed Feb 23 2000 - 13:07:08 CST