Re: Good News for MS Windows users: Your favorite database is here..

On Wed, 23 May 2001 14:03:02 +0100, Obnoxio The Clown <obnoxio_at_hotmail.com> wrote:

For once I'd like to get a reply that made technical sense instead of a cop-out followed by a shift in the subject. Only one got even vaguely close, all credit to that particular IBM'er!

>If I were a life donor interested in splitting hairs, I could, for instance,
>point out that most of us (even those who work for hardware vendors) don't
>really have a 12-way Sequent box lying around to saturate with a single
>parallel query (or a can of DB2 for that matter!) just to prove whatever point
>it was you were trying to make.

I'll explain. Not to elucidate you: you know perfectly well what I was talking about. For the benefit of lurkers who might be tempted to confuse irony with technical accuracy.

A database engine that claims parallel processing ability has to do so by ensuring the best possible use is made of ALL available processors, not just a single one. One easy and sure-fire way of testing this is to verify if it can use all the available processors in a SMP system with an isolated parallel request. In this case, a query.

If it can't, then it doesn't really exploit the multi-processor capability of many modern computers. Nor can it claim parallel processing ability. No TPC-x here whatsoever, nor is it minimally relevant.

For once I'd like to see someone NOT QUOTE some crappy page on the Net with TPC results. We all have seen them ad-nauseum over many, many years, thank you. Utterly freakin' boring!

And yes, there are instances where parallel queries are needed. Such as handling ad-hoc queries on very large tables in data warehouses. Familiar with the concept? Of course you are.

>I also couldn't really care about the scalability of a single, arbitrary query
>which might be life or death for you, because I don't work on your system. If I
>did, I'd possibly feel differently. Although, frankly, I can't see how any site
>where you worked would need anybody else around except to make you coffee or
>bask in your radiance, and I'm crap at both.

Radiance? You call absolutely *BASIC* database stuff "radiance"? I have yet to hear a technical argument in this whole thread. All I see is cop-outs from those who "blow the wind" with blatantly false and ignorant statements about what ORACLE does, totally void of any technical or factual accuracy.

And some half-baked techno-marketing garbage about "taking best advantage of each architecture". Wish I had a $ for every time I heard that one from computer makers. Why even bother bringing it in? It's a given, for Pete's sake!
<Pete, we gotta try that sake again. :-)>

OF COURSE half of what ORACLE marketing says is rubbish. So is half of what IBM marketing says. And ALL of what M$ says! :-) That's marketing: they're professional rubbish pushers. Those of us with half a brain can pull out the real meat. I just don't like to see bagging of a product, ANY product, with completely false and misleading statements.

If I really wanted to "bask in radiance", I'd probably take the approach you did: interjections based on arrogant irony, with intentional avoidance of any technical involvement or content.

But I'm sure after being the very first to resort to irony, you'll now find a way of pointing the finger back and claim: "Mum, he's getting personal. Bwaaah, unfair!" :-)

>
>Things like this that remind me why cross-posters should be hung, drawn and
>quartered (ipse dixit).
>

Mind telling us WHO STARTED and WHO CONTINUED the x-post, changing it to an attack on ORACLE?

Or should we blame it on ORACLE's "old technology" too? Come on, a little effort. It shouldn't be too hard, given the level of replies so far. <G>

Cheers
Nuno Souto
nsouto_at_bigpond.net.au.nospam
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/the_Den/index.html Received on Sat Jul 21 2001 - 18:06:07 CDT