Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid |
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: Larry Ellison comments on Microsoft's benchmark
Finally this thread made to the DB2 newsgroup, eh?
Here are my 2 (biased) cents:
1. Microsoft was sued over that benchmark because they violated one of
the rules.
I.e. SQL Server cannot update the column used to partition the view over the
federated database. The TPC-C benchmark requires updateability of ALL
columns. It seems like they'll get away with flagging their violation and a raised
finger.
To be fair I should add that updating of partitioning keys is no
trivial excercise.
2. The benchmark did not use mirroring. As stated in earlier posts
running such a
beast in a company would be quite - unstable. One has to watch this when
looking at the price/performance numbers. 3. Jim Gray said himself that the environment was very hard to set up and to keep
running through the audit.
Finally a federated database is not the same as an MPP system like e.g.
DB2 EEE.
In an MPP system the whole query plan gets compiled with MPP in mind and
parts
of the execution get distributed to the participating nodes. The whole
thing is still one database, partitioned tables are still tables and the
integration is VERY tight.
A federated database sits on top of other database systems. Parts of the
query get
shipped (like SQL Servers pass through queries) to the target systems
and the
results get shipped back. On DB2 side this would be Datajoiner or the
new DB2 V7.1 where SQL queries get reverse engineered post optimization
and send to the target systems through public interfaces. The connection
is loose compared to MPP and involves sending the SQL (rather than
"executable sub query plans"). Partitioned tables are represented as
views with all their advantages and disadvantages.
just my two cents
Serge
Received on Tue Jun 27 2000 - 00:00:00 CDT