Re: Informix vs. Sybase vs. Oracle vs. (gasp) MS SQL Server

In article <34852035.6789_at_agd.nsw.gov.au>, no_sp.am_at_agd.nsw.gov.au says...
>
>Johan Andersson wrote:
>> [ .. pll/rll RDBMS'es other than Informix and Sybase ..]
>
> Do you have any examples?
>

No. My point was that specific databases was not the issue.

> And increasing concurrency gives you ... ?
>
Faster response times to the users, for example.

>> The only thing the TPC-C proves is that there exists at least one
>> application for which RLL / PLL is not an issue. I can see no proof
 whatsoever
>> for this being true for all 'finely tuned' applications.
>
> Do you have any examples where its not the case for a
> 'finely tuned' application?
>
No. My point was that Pablo has no proof of his statement. I have not tried to prove my assumptions. Neither have I tried to define or examplify a 'finely tuned' application. My point again is that neither has Pablo. He waved the TPC-C test as proof, IMHO this is not so, for the above reason.

>> [.. my description of TPC-C ...]
>
> TPC-C mimics OLTP applications (which is what you've described).
>
It mimics _one_ OLTP application. It is a realistic application, but I can find nowhere in the TPC-C specs where it says that it mimics all OLTP applications, or even all 'finely tuned' applications whatever that is.

> I don't know of any OLTP applications that are batch jobs. Do you?
>
The combination of batch an OLTP is not unexistant, why?

>> It would be very interesting seeing a test that measured how an RDBMS
>> performed under the load of transactions of ever increasing complexity.
>
> Do you know of any applications that run with ever increasing
> complexity? An OLTP application does essentially the same thing
> over and over. Only its data changes.
>
No, but I assume that different OLTP applications have different transaction complexity. The complexity could also be user driven, ie an application where the complexity of a transaction varies depending on what the user does. Where is your proof that _all_ OLTP applications 'does the same thing over and over'?

>> We have seen a number of examples in this thread of applications that would
>> benefit from RLL. My point is that the TPC-C alone is not enough to state
 that
>> these examples are irrelevant.
>
> Which examples whould they be? I haven't seen one concrete example
> yet that absolutely mandates RLL.
>
There have been examples. Whether they 'absolutely mandate RLL' is under debate. I have no proof either way. My point is that the TPC-C test alone is no proof these examples are false which means I have seen no proof that they 'do not mandate RLL' either.

/Johan

-- 
 ________________________________________________________________________
| >>> The opinions herein are mine and not neccessarily my employers <<< |
| Johan Andersson, Msc CSE                               jna_at_carmenta.se |
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~