Re: lies damn lies and benchmarks

Andrew Mobbs <andrewm_at_chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message news:<Efb*2tEnp_at_news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>...
> Mike Ault <mikerault_at_earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >Looking at the most current top ten values overall Oracle achieves a
> >TPCC/CPU-MGHTZ rating of 8.11 beaten only by Symphonies 8.24 (whatever
> >the heck Symphony is) SQL2000 comes in 4th place at 3.36. The most
> >bang for the buck comes in with Oracle's 1,019,668.87 per
> >TPCC/CPU-Mghrtz against SQL2000 at 1,592,560.56. UDB comes in at 4.92
> >and a cost of 1,733,687.45. UDB beats SQL2000 in TPCC/CPU-Mghtz but
> >looses in overall price. Oracle beats both handling when you remove
> >the obscuring junk in the numbers.
>
> Who cares about TpmC/MHz ? That's a meaningless metric. CPU performance
> is only loosely correlated with the clock speed, if you look at the SPEC
> CPU benchmarks, you can find a 750MHz PA-RISC outperforming a 1.5GHz
> Pentium 4.
>
> Oracle is a great database, with many impressive and useful
> features. TPC-C shows it scaling to impressive levels, but it (and
> Unix vendors) fall down dramatically on price/performance in the
> mid-range. Unless Oracle and HP/IBM/Sun want to give up this ground to
> MS, they better do something to fix this.
>
> For example, compare these two results:
> http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_result_detail.asp?id=102031101
> http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_result_detail.asp?id=102012901
>
> These show two benchmarks both published earlier this year, with an
> IBM/SQL Server system outperforming an Compaq/Oracle system that cost
> twice as much.

The comparison is at:
http://www.pcmag.com/article/0,2997,s=1474&a=23370,00.asp

Mike Received on Tue May 07 2002 - 14:41:13 CDT