Re: Microsoft destroys TPC-C records!

In article <38e9d4c0.9037485_at_news-server>, nsouto_at_nsw.bigpond.net.au.nospam (Nuno Souto) wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Apr 2000 12:33:08 GMT, jahorsch_at_my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >>
> >7.0 has true row level locking now.
>
> Remains to be seen how solid or resilient it is. I'm reminded of the
> Ingres "row-locking" turning into table locking when you least
> expected. Usually when the engine was over-loaded. Right when you
> want it most. But hey! Did they rattle-on about it...
>
> >Server 7.0 is a brand new engine with only compatibility left.
>
> That to me spells untested, buggy, fragile software. Exactly what
> should be used to keep critical data. :-)
>
> > MS
> >hired some of the best engine builders in the field to make this one.
> >They made it very scalable (as long as NT can scale that far.)
> >
>
> I'm reminded here of the utter crap Sybase used to put out about how
> "modern" their code was compared to ORACLE, yadda-yadda.
>
> They basically picked the code of the old Britton-Lee database
> machine, renamed it, made it run on UNIX and called it a "modern"
> product. Didn't even bother changing the names or the language.
> Still have one of their initial company presentations where they
> clearly say they were all ex-Britton-Lee. No wonder they took AGES
> porting to VMS, darn thing was never written to be portable!
>
> And for a long time, MS was sucked into that one too. Now they are
> using the same technique. Heck, they didn't even bother to change the
> low-level data management. It's still fixed block, based on "devices"
> and all that crap. "best engine builders" my ass!
>
> The day MS can produce a database that can run equally well on NT or
> UNIX or a mainframe is the day they become relevant. Until then, it's
> just proprietary and locked-in. For all intents and purposes, behind
> the times and old-fashioned in its design strategy.
>
> Tying a database to an OS exclusively is no demonstration of any good
> design technique whatsoever. It's making it dependent on the OS.
> Change the OS and the whole thing craps. Worse: once they start going
> that way, it's very difficult to introduce new stuff at the OS level
> without severely impacting the "tied-in" software. Result: the OS
> progress stales.
>
> Note: not to say NT is bad. I think it's a darn good OS. It has many
> flaws, like any other. But overall, it's a very good effort.
> Particularly since NT4/SP4. Jury still out on 2000. However, for
> large and medium systems UNIX is so far ahead it's not even funny. If
> only MS would get rid of that moronic "registry" idea and the multiple
> re-boots every time anyone so much as clicks on an OK button...
>
> But a good database is one that doesn't depend on intimate OS
> cooperation to run efficiently. That creates a heap of problems for
> both the OS and the database. As MS will find out.
>
> Cheers
> Nuno Souto
> nsouto_at_nsw.bigpond.net.au.nospam
> http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/the_Den/index.html
>

Dont go bashing a DBMS until you have used it. Your remarks on devices, page size, etc clearly shows that you have not used it. Devices are gone they are only there for backward compatibiliy. There are now files and filegroups very similiar to tablespaces. Backups and restores are MUCH faster. These guys did a great job on it. Sure there are bugs but it runs pretty damn good. I suppose you will say the latest build of 8i 8.1.0.5(?) doesn't have any bugs. I wont deny the registry sucks. I prefer UNIX as an OS because it is more flexible. I can also say the same about Oracle as being more flexible. With the horsepower that is available today most projects do not need to be so flexible. You do not need to tweak it as much to get it functioning to where your clients want it. As for as fixed blocks It doesnt matter since it is tied to NT. They obviously picked an optimal value. I had heard that chaining was built into the engine but not implemented. I for one do not like chaining and think that 8K is plenty big enough for a rowsize. If it is bigger than that use blobs or try using normilization its a wonderful thing. As far as propritary? MS is very propritary. Thats a bad thing yes but it also promotes tight integration. MS is trying to sell themselves across the board. The only real place where I think MS is lacking in a good development tool for 2 tier or even n-tier. Thier tools are allright but I miss having something like PB to crank out a nice 2-tier app in 1/4 of the time it takes now. It also looked much better just a little fat on the client side. Lock escalation is a good thing most of the time. You can control the locking if you need to but the engine usually will do the best thing.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy. Received on Tue Apr 04 2000 - 00:00:00 CDT