Try quering the data at the same time ?
--
Denny Koovakattu
In article <730pk7$u0g$1_at_nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
chris_singer_at_my-dejanews.com wrote:
> I find this sort of reply VERY confusing.
>
> It assumes that Sybase is inefficient for using a single, or few, processes
> and a large chunk of shared memory. On the contrary, if within that process
> you can do your own multi-threading and context switching more efficiently
> that the operating system then a single process doing all of the work is more
> efficient than lots of processes. As multi-threading is, as far as I am
> aware, ALWAYS more efficient than using mutiple processes Sybase is MORE
> efficient than Oracle etc. The reason for the existence of multi-threading is
> because it is more efficient.
>
> Also why use a small amount of memory for storing useful data from the
> database when you can use most of the machine's memory for it. Oracle only
> uses a relatively small portion of the memory as it HAS to use the other
> memory for redundant data which it cannot share, this redundancy is also
> inefficient.
>
> The better efficiency is why Sybase always seems to beat Oracle hands down for
> performance on like for like and can be MUCH better e.g Oracle need a 44
> processor system to achieve 49000 TPC transactions per minute while Sybase
> acieve 52000+ on a 16 processor system.
>
> I know both systems well and Oracle's architecture is definitely NOT more
> efficient then Sybase.
>
> Any questions?
>
> Chris
>
> In article <72t1sm$nad$1_at_nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> lburns4770_at_my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > One major difference between the DBMSs seems to be the way they use the
> > operating system's shared memory. Sybase appears to do everything inside of
> > one Unix process (the dataserver process), while Oracle and Informix spawn
> > multiple Unix processes to perform tasks. For this reason, Sybase requires
> > you to define a huge chunk of shared memory on the Unix platform (2/3 to 3/4
> > of the total physical memory), and allocate most of it to Sybase. Oracle
and
> > Informix require a shared memory pool that is only 20-25% of the total
> > memory.
> >
> > Incidently, there doesn't seem to be any useable documentation anywhere on
> > what settings to use for SHMMAX, although you can hose your system really
> > badly if it is set too high or too low. I don't know why Sybase doesn't
> > address this issue in any of its documentation.
> >
> > Also, does anyone know the history of why Sybase is architected like this?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > -- Larry
> >
> > In article <72p0am$j5n$1_at_imsp009a.netvigator.com>,
> > paulkcng_at_news.netvigator.com (Ng K C Paul) wrote:
> > > I can explain that sometimes Sybase holds the fastest tpc and sometimes
> > > Oracle and sometimes DB2.
> > >
> > > Sybase vs Oracle is like Unix vs VMS , ls vs dir
> > >
> > > Karl Zdero (zderok_at_viaginterkom.de) wrote:
> > > : The usual techie debate continues,
> > > : Is Sybase better than Oracle or is Oracle better than Sybase?
> > > :
> > > : When it comes to benchmarks, the www.sybase.com site says that Sybase
> > > : holds the world record, but www.oracle.com says it holds the record. I
> > > : see in www.tpc.org that the fastest tpc is with Oracle!
> > > :
> > > : Now apart from benchmarks, what makes either database better?
> > > :
> > > : I like Oracle as I've used it the most, heres why.
> > > : + sqlplus is superior than isql, at least I can check return error
> > > : codes.
> > > : + PL/SQL is more powerful than TRANSACT/SQL
> > > : + I can see qll SQL activity for a particular session (SQLAREA),
> > > : can't do it in Sybase?
> > > : + Oracle comes standard with many utilities, whereas Sybase doesn't
> > > : + Oracle has more options with triggers than Sybase. e.g. per row
> > > : triggers and per statement
> > > : (In Sybase you must write a cursor loop to action a multiple row
> > > : insert for example)
> > > : + Monitors are standard with Oracle. (Sybase dont think so)
> > > : + Row level locking been for years in Oracle, only recently in
> > > : Sybase.
> > > : + Oracle can select data from another database on another server
> > > : (dblink) Can Sybase?
> > > :
> > > :
> > >
> >
> > -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> > http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
> >
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Received on Fri Dec 04 1998 - 00:00:00 CST
