Re: Choosing a database for a DSS system (40-100G range)

Eyal Kattan wrote in message <36432A32.24C5E7A8_at_infomall.co.il>...

>> The last thing I am willing to trust are these so-called "shootouts" and
>> crap.
>
>Isn't that exactly what Oracle did with their announcement dated September
8 ?

Did not read that - not interested in this marketing crap. :-)

>I have to agree with you on this. However, I find it important to compare
>performances on the same hardware and environment because sometimes there
 is a
>budget limit or hardware limit and you want to get the best your money can
 buy
>and exploit the maximum of your hardware .

Which is only part of the criteria when deciding on what to purchase. More often, that is not the prime criteria. What about all that other stuff I'm usually harping about - existing IT/IS infrastructure, support and maintenance contracts, inhouse skills, etc. etc. In my experience that plays the major role in deciding what to purchase and not "best value for money", because value for money is beyond simple price/performance statistics in the real corporate environment.

> At this point Oracle didn't play a
>honest game since they published only part of the story. This is what I
 call
>confusing and misleading. IBM even put a link in their article to Oracle
 web
>page with the announcement.

Maybe it's that dreaded Microsoft Marketing that's now rubbing off onto the other vendors? :-)

As I said, I sometime read marketing bs, but never ever believe it.

>That is partially correct. When reading a TPC benchmark report, I also
 refer to
>the differences between the products, not necessary the actual numbers. I
 do
>take in consideration that the product was optimized like it can't be in
 real
>world. But this apply to *all* tested products.

Of course, which is why bench marks are really just smoke and mirrors. Ask me - I know what stunts we pulled when we had to do "shootouts" with other vendors as part of a tender.

>> Does this really matter? Do you honestly expect a corporate to buy
>> product xyz simply on the merits of that product's TPC rating!!!
>
>No, not at all, but it's one more reliable independent resource to help
 making
>the right decision for the organization.

Only if the measure which is used is simple, straight forward with no ambiquity. Which TPC is not.

>Ahhhh....Marketing, my friend Marketting....That's the name of the game.
 But
>even though, all of my customers enjoys working with OS/2 without rebooting
>twice a day (at least) :)

Ah.. a name from the distant past. You mean OS/2 is -still- around!! <amazed expression> ;-))

>I couldn't agree more :) But maybe it's up to us (and maybe it's time), the
>experts and technical community, to give our bosses or clients the *right*
>advice based on their *real* needs and *real* solutions there are and not
 based
>on *popularity* and *nice* packaging etc etc......

I'll forward this to alt.the.end.is nigh. The day that management takes the advise from their technical staff seriously is the day on which earth is demolished for a hyperspace bypass... ;-)

regards,
Billy Received on Mon Nov 09 1998 - 00:00:00 CST