Re: Oracle Performance on HP vs Sun ?
From: Martin Farber <farber_at_nynexst.com>
Date: 15 Mar 1994 20:43:41 GMT
Message-ID: <2m56lt$er7_at_news.nynexst.com>
Date: 15 Mar 1994 20:43:41 GMT
Message-ID: <2m56lt$er7_at_news.nynexst.com>
You mean you can't just count the NUMBER of TPC/C benchmarks performed as Informix is want to do? ;-)
--- <<MFF>> ------------------------------------- Twenty-Five years ago it meant something to be Crazy! - Charles Manson In article pek_at_uk-usenet.uk.sun.com, timr_at_cerrera.uk.sun.com (Tim Read - Sun Linlithgow Snr SE and DB Amb.) writes:Received on Tue Mar 15 1994 - 21:43:41 CET
>Todd,
>
>A final few points. (and my last posting on the subject hopely)
>
>1. According to the TPC-C FDR the T500 is not available until 7th July 94
>- I am sure that someone will correct me if this is wrong! In this case
>one could take the standpoint that it should only be compared with results
>of machines also available on that date. It may have the lead now but knowing
>this industry this is likely to be short lived.
>
>2. No flames... but a word of caution regarding TPC numbers. The rules are
>pretty explicit as to what you can and can't do. I won't bore you with the
>details but TPC-C can *only* be compared with TPC-Cs. No extrapolations are
>allowed and only price/performance pairs can be compared. It is not permissible
>to quote just the TPC figure without the cost per TPC-xyz.
>
>3. Getting back to my original reason for posting - no company has *such* a
>technology lead that they can claim to 'Kick anyones Butt' (which is the
>phrase I objected to. You pays your money and you takes your choice.
>
>Regards,
>
>Tim
>---
>
>