Re: >Oracle's future
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 1994 19:13:29 GMT
Message-ID: <Cn6o2H.19H5_at_eclipse.torolab.ibm.com>
In article <ddargo.764466030_at_ibmsun1> ddargo_at_us.oracle.com (Dave Dargo) writes:
>verma_at_eclipse.torolab.ibm.com (Surendra K. Verma) writes:
>
>>In article <1994Mar22.223454.2137_at_colesmyer.com.au> amay_at_colesmyer.com.au (Andrew May CMIS) writes:
>>>>I would just like to point out several things:
>>>> 1, DB2/6000 is faster than Oracle v7, if Oracle doesn't use discrete trans.
>>>
>>>You would hope that IBM's proprietary database on their proprietary box
>>>would run faster than any other. The figures I got from IBM are:
>>>
>>I don't know how you can classify DB2/6000 to be any more "proprietary"
>>than Oracle. Just because it was released on the RS/6000 before any
>>other platform? I think what's great about the statement below is that
>>the FIRST release of this product would have beaten Oracle if Oracle
>>had not used discrete transactions.
>
>First, DB2/6000 was not released on the RS/6000 before any other platform.
>DB2/6000 is IBM's Workstation RDBMS and is a port of the DB2/2 product.
>It was released on OS/2 first and is just the next release of the OS/2 EE
>Datamanager.
Sorry, I meant first UNIX platform. Again, DB2/2 is more enhanced than OS/2 EE Datamanager. For example, the log-manager has been rewritten. DB2/2 is also much more stable than OS/2 ES1.0 which came after OS2/EE. This is something that our customers tell us. DB2/6000 is even more enhanced in terms of stability, performance, and function than any of the OS/2 products. I'm personally responsible for contributing quite a bit to the performance of DB2/6000.
>
>Secondly, on what do you base the statement that it would have beaten Oracle
>if Oracle had not used discrete transactions? A guess? A feeling? A hope?
>
>Dave (ddargo_at_us.oracle.com)
Why don't you tell us how much you'd get if you didn't use discrete transactions?
Surendra
verma_at_torolab2.torolab.ibm.com
Received on Thu Mar 24 1994 - 20:13:29 CET