Re: Larry Ellison comments on Microsoft's benchmark

May I know if there is any difference between DB2 7.1 Temporary Table feature and SQLServer?

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

> Yes.  DB2 supports whatever the operating system provides support for.  The same
> source code is used to build DB2 on NT and Unix.  On Unix, we have tested DB2 on a
> Sun E10000 with 64 processors.
 

> Norris wrote:  

>> 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

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