Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: Larry Ellison comments on Microsoft's benchmark

Re: Larry Ellison comments on Microsoft's benchmark

From: Ivana Humpalot <ivana_humpalot_at_nospam.com>
Date: 2000/07/04
Message-ID: <ctp85.27071$i5.275538@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com>#1/1

Blair,

Can you answer a question that I believe is highly relevant and important:

Does Larry Ellison's comments apply to the top TPC-C result (DB2 on NT)?

In other words, if one of the machines fail, will DB2 still give me the right results? Or will queries fail or give wrong answers?

What I want to know is whether the configuration as tested can be used in real life without using any additional hardware.

"Blair Kenneth Adamache" <adamache_at_ca.ibm.com> wrote in message news:39616BBF.C3CFA30C_at_ca.ibm.com...
> 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
>
Received on Tue Jul 04 2000 - 00:00:00 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US