Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid |
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: Larry Ellison comments on Microsoft's benchmark
In oracle, in case of data/index corruption, you can use Export/Import to resolve the optimization and defragmentation. Usually, you do it less frequent than DBCC because Oracle performs the database consistency check automatically for every update.
In comp.databases.sybase William Dutton <william.dutton_at_fmr.com> wrote: > 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
-- http://www.cooper.com.hkReceived on Thu Jun 29 2000 - 00:00:00 CDT