Re: Larry Ellison comments on Microsoft's benchmark

Can UDB support more than 4 processers on Win2k?

In comp.databases.sybase Blair Kenneth Adamache <adamache_at_ca.ibm.com> wrote:

> For what it's worth, the top TPC-C result is now DB2 on NT, another shared
> nothing database (unlike Microsoft SQL Server, this version of DB2 will
> allow the partition key to be updated). See:
> http://www.tpc.org/new_result/ttperf.idc.  Between TPC-C and TPC-H
> (http://www.tpc.org/new_result/h-ttperf.idc) IBM software (DB2) and/or IBM
> hardware (a mixture of Netfinity, RS/6000 and NUMA-Q) now hold top spots for
> all TPC-C and TPC-H metrics that focus on performance.
 

> Serge Rielau wrote:  

>> 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

-- 
http://www.cooper.com.hk