Re: Oracle VS SQL Server - Which is best to back end ?

Uri,

    That result was not recognised by the TPC council. It was declared illegal. IBM have since smashed those figures with a legal test.

"Uri Klil-Hahoresh" <uri.klilhahoresh_at_compaq.com> wrote in message news:8p2qd9$nle$1_at_mailint03.im.hou.compaq.com...
> Maybe you don't need such configuration, but the following article (I must
> say it comes from winNT magazine...) can give you some point of view of
 the
> ongoing development of SQLserver:
>
>
> 2. ========== HOT OFF THE PRESS ==========
> (contributed by Paul Thurrott, thurrott_at_win2000mag.com)
>
> * SQL SERVER SHATTERS PERFORMANCE RECORDS
> One detail that came out of Bill Gates' keynote address during the
> Windows 2000 (Win2K) launch was the announcement that Microsoft's
> upcoming SQL Server 2000 product had just set the world record in the
> industry-standard TPC-C benchmark, which measures database server
> performance. SQL Server 2000 set the new record on a 12-system Compaq
> configuration running Win2K.
> Previous to the Win2K/SQL Server 2000 tandem, the record holder was
> Oracle 8i running on a 96-processor clustered Solaris system, which
> scored 135,815 tpmC. Using SQL Server 2000, Windows 2000 Advanced
> Server (Win2K AS), and 12 8-processor Compaq ProLiant servers, Compaq
> and Microsoft scored 227,079 tpmC, which is a whopping 68 percent
> improvement over the prior record. This score represents a volume 575
> times larger than the combined transaction volumes of Amazon.com and
> eBay. For more information, go to
> http://www.wininformant.com/display.asp?ID=2582.
>
>
> Best regards
> Uri, ISRAEL
>
> "Alex Stevens" <alex_at_matrixinfotech.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:RO3t5.6084$pi.30098_at_NewsReader...
> > I guess that this has probably been discussed before, but not in my
 lifetime
> > on this group, so I'd appreciate any views that the group have as VB
> > Developers.
> >
> > I've been asked to make a comparison between Oracle / SQLS for a
> > specification we're writing for a system which is too great for Access,
> > (poor network infrastructure on site). So the solution is for a
> > client/server system.
> >
> > Point to note: The volumes of data will be too great for Access, but
> > probably at the lower end of the scale for a true client/server back end
> > database.
> >
> > The company contracted to support IT at the firm, will only support
 Oracle
> > back-ends, and will not hear of SQL Server being installed. The main
 client
> > however will listen to any argument for the use SQLS with VB.
> >
> > I would prefer to use SQL Server, as I always feel more at home with
> > Microsoft products (Technet support, big on-line communities), by my
> > knowledge of any comparison with Oracle is nil.
> >
> > I would appreciate any of your views regarding this dilemma.
> >
> > Many Thanks
> >
> > Alex Stevens, England
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Tue Sep 05 2000 - 23:05:15 CEST