Re: Larry Ellison comments on Microsoft's benchmark

Has SQL resolved issues with table and index corruption on large tables?

I have databases in 6.5 and 7.0. I get a LOT of corruption on large tables with 10 or more indexes in 6.5. 7.0 seems to be much more stable but that is more of a data wharehouse situation without a lot of inserts/deletes affecting indexes.

It seems to me that Oracle has none of these problems. I know of no tool like DBCC to correct corruption issues with Oracle and have never seen the need for it.

Charles Wagner wrote:

> SQL Server 2000 is amazing and the Larry Ellison, and DB2 camp are scaried.
> SQL Server 2000 will also fully support XML with OpenXML. The T-SQL is
> going to allow you to write your own functions (and not just in VBScript).
> With the Application Center 2000 software clustering will be seemless.
> Oracle will choke and although I love IBM, DB2 better look out. Microsoft
> will provide SQL Server 2000, Biztalk Server, and Web Services. Can you say
> "developers paradise".
>
> Chuck
>
> Norris <jcheong_at_cooper.com.hk> wrote in message
> news:8ja49v$1nnk$1_at_adenine.netfront.net...
> > Do you mean only very large databases like Tandem, DB2, SQLServer can
 provide
> > shared-nothing clustering technology?
> >
> >
> > In comp.databases.ms-sqlserver Richard Waymire <rwaymir_at_ibm.net> wrote:
> > > The data is partitioned across each node for key tables. If a node
 fails
> > > any queries against the distributed partitioned view will fail (but
 NEVER
> > > return incorrect results). Hence the recommendation to run each node in
 an
> > > MSCS failover cluster.
 

> > > Is shared-nothing clustering good for general systems? Ask just about
 every
> > > VERY large system in a cluster (Tandem, DB2, etc.).
 

> > > For an objective opinion on such matters, please read some relevant
 material
> > > such as "In Search of Clusters" by Pfister from IBM Corp. You might
 also
> > > look up some slides, etc. from Doctor Jim Gray
> > > (http://research.microsoft.com/~gray/). Before you dismiss the site
 because
> > > it's on Microsoft's web page, look at this credentials (including the
 Turing
> > > award).
 

> > > --
> > > Richard Waymire, MCT, MCSE+I, MCSD, MCDBA
> > > "Alexander Penev" <webmaster_at_penev.com> wrote in message
> > > news:395554AC.9D413341_at_penev.com...
> > >> What do you mean? Is the data partitioned along the 12 nodes or not?
 Will
 the
> > >> whole system fail if one of the nodes fails? Are this issues good for a
 for a
> > >> general purpose system or not? That's what Ellison says and i think
 it's
 just
> > >> true. If you think it's not please explain us why. I would not read
 hundreds
> > >> of c++ code without knowing what i'm looking for...
> > >>
> > >> "Michael D. Long" wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > And if you can read C++, you'll find some other goodies...
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > Michael D. Long
> > >> > http://extremedna.homestead.com
> > >> >
> > >> > "Alexander Penev" <webmaster_at_penev.com> wrote in message
> > >> > news:39527E0C.E614B483_at_penev.com...
> > >> > > Hi Steve,
> > >> > > It's true that every company tries to blame the compatitor's
 product
 and
 to
> > >> > > push theirs but THIS STATEMENTS of L. Ellison ARE JUST TRUE!!!! You
 can
 see it
> > >> > > yourself:
> > >> > >

 http://www.tpc.org/results/FDR/Tpcc/compaq.8500.96p.00021702.fdr.pdf
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Just see the source code for creating the databases of the
 databases.......
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Steve Jorgensen wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > All companies try to lie with statistics while being technically
 accurate.
> > >> > > > That's why you have to read every company's benchmarks, their
 competitors'
> > >> > > > benchmarks, and everyone's critiques of everyone else's
 benchmarks.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Ivana Humpalot wrote in message ...
> > >> > > > >X-No-Archive: yes
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >In the Analyst Q&A following Oracle's 4th Quarter Earnings
 Report,
> > >> > > > >Larry Ellison made some very interesting remarks about
 Microsoft's
> > >> > > > >recent SQL Server 2000 benchmark.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >If Ellison's comments are true then Microsoft is basically
> > >> > > > >defrauding their customers with their benchmark.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >I have included below the transcript of his comments.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >Is Larry Ellison lying or is Microsoft really defrauding their
> > >> > > > >customers with their benchmark?
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >You can listen to the audio here:
> > >> > > > > http://www.nasdaq.com/reference/broadcast_oracle.htm
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >Near the 1 hour mark, an analyst from Paine Webber asked a
 question
> > >> > > > >about Microsoft SQL Server 2000. The following is Larry
 Ellison's
> > >> > > > >response:
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > In terms of microsoft.. we have no concerns at all. They
 still
> > >> > > > > can't scale. They have this benchmark that they got out which
> > >> > > > > works only in the laboratory.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > The only problem with microsoft's benchmark is that it has a
> > >> > > > > 3-hour mean time of failure. What they have done is to chop
 up
> > >> > > > > the database in to 10 separate little databases, and if any
 one
> > >> > > > > of those databases fail it brings down the entire system, or
> > >> > > > > worse yet gives wrong results.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > So it is a completely bogus benchmark.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > I mean, it meets the letter of the benchmark rules, however
 by
> > >> > > > > their own statistics in terms of availability they have a
 very
> > >> > > > > very short mean time of failure.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > No one seriously will ever use this kind of system.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > They have 10 separate computers each with 10% of the
 database.
> > >> > > > > If you want an 11th computer you have to unload the entire
> > >> > > > > database from the 10 computers and then put 9.1% of the
 database
> > >> > > > > on the 11 computers. If one of the computers fail you lose
 10%
> > >> > > > > of the database. And that means when you use your query.. you
> > >> > > > > don't get the right answer back.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > If you use 10 separate systems.. if you believe Microsoft's
> > >> > > > > statistics on failure rates.. one failure every 30 days, you
 are
> > >> > > > > going to get a major system outage or wrong results every 3
 days.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > It is a preposterous benchmark.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > >
> > >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > http://www.cooper.com.hk
Received on Wed Jun 28 2000 - 00:00:00 CDT