Re: Is Oracle Simply a Pig - The Worst I've See

mloennro_at_se.oracle.com (Magnus Lonnroth) writes:

>>>>>> "Jim" == Jim Kramer <kramer_at_ash.sps.mot.com> writes:

> Jim> Yes! Oracle is a GIANT SQUEELER! However, I'm pretty sure
> Jim> that all relational databases are. Remember you're dealing
> Jim> with something that spends all of it's time talking to the
> Jim> disk! This is why DB tuning is SOOOOO IMPORTANT. The other
> Jim> thing you can do is buy really fast disk drives (fast & wide
> Jim> SCSI, etc). You really do have to select the right
> Jim> computer/peripherals for the job. This ain't no DISKO, ya
> Jim> know!
 

> Jim> Jim Kramer Motorola
 

>The original poster was complaining about excessive memory demands
>by Oracle front-end processes - not I/O contention. Oracle should
>never be I/O bound, it should always be CPU bound - that's our whole

   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>strategy. CPUs get cheaper and faster all the time, disks don't (at
>least not yet).

    This is news to me! As I pointed out in my last posting,     PC Magazine did a test of SQL databases. They found the CPU     usage of Oracle to be quite low compared to other DBs. Their     conclusion was that Oracle (on Netware at least) was I/O     bound due to the limitations of the server's architecture.

    I take all such tests with a grain of salt. Can anyone     confirm or refute these contraints ?

Rich Holowczak
Rutgers University
holowcza_at_andromeda.rutgers.edu Received on Wed Dec 01 1993 - 15:56:41 CET