I hate to tell you this, but I have spent the last 4 years delivering large
systems to companies, using SQL Server.
All have had a minimum of a 1000 users and most have tables with million and
millions of rows.
There are also lots of others with similar experiences.
Good design, integrated tools and good programming are what make successful
projects.
The best tool in the world, poor design and bad programming still gives a
piece of crap.
Michael
Billy Verreynne <vslabs_at_onwe.co.za> wrote in message
71s4kg$1od$1_at_hermes.is.co.za...
>Michael wrote in message ...
>>Go with NT + SQL server 7
>>if you want to see some large database performance go to
>>http://terraserver.microsoft.com.
>
>Which of course is a total whack of utter BS. I raised this issue some
>months ago in comp.databases.ms-sqlserver. But seeing that this is being
>crossposted to other database conferences, let's me swing my lead pipe
>again.
>
><rant>
>Microsoft does NOT prove ANYTHING with their terraserver. For heaven's
sake,
>that database has just over 100 million rows. It's not the size of the
>database that matters, but how well that database handles large volumes of
>rows. The "tiny" data warehouse (about 160+ GB) I worked on had 170 million
>rows in it's largest table.
>
>Once again, the sheer arrogance of Microsoft and amazing stupidity of the
>Microsoft groupie market to believe that SQL-Server 7 is really capable of
>handling huge volumes of data by means of this so-called terraserver
>astounds me.
></rant>
>
>Billy
>
>
>
>
Received on Sat Nov 07 1998 - 00:00:00 CST
