Re: DBMS for W2K platform

I don't think www.tpc.org adds anything to this debate. For the benchmarks and scale factors where DB2 and SQL Server have gone head to head on Windows (TPC-C and 100,000 item TPC-W), SQL Server is in first both places, and DB2 is in second, BUT:

1. on TPC-C, SQL Server is at 688,220 tpm on 280 900 Mhz processors, and DB2 is at 440,879 on 128 700 Mhz processors. Both databases are shared nothing, and scale quite nicely on TPC-C, so I contend that SQL Server delivers less performance (measured on a per-processor basis, and even ignoring the faster clockspeed used by SQL Server).
2. Similar results at 100,000 TPC-W: SQL Server is 33% faster but has 33% more processors.

SQL Servers Federated approach to shared nothing (unless I'm mistaken they use views or unions to combine tables that are spread across different machines in a cluster) is a 1980's approach to shared nothing.

BP Margolin wrote:

> Archie,
>
> If you have decided upon a Windows platform, then SQL Server is the ONLY one
> of the three databases that you mentioned that is optimized specifically for
> the Windows platform.
>
> If you need cross operating system compatibility, then this is definitely a
> disadvantage for SQL Server. But the competitors to SQL Server can not match
> SQL Server's performance in a Windows environment. Surf over to www.tpc.org
> for industry standard benchmarks.
>
> With this said, I would also suggest that since you have a non-SQL Server
> background, but presumably a DB2 and/or Oracle background, that you consider
> the fact that each RDBMS is different. Techniques and methods that you might
> have learned on DB2 and/or Oracle, might not be appropriate for SQL Server.
> Unless you are willing to "re-learn" from scratch the proper programming
> techniques for SQL Server, you might be very frustrated (just as one would
> probably be frustrated moving from SQL Server to either DB2 and/or Oracle).
>
> Bottom line: you and your management have to decide which criterion are most
> important to you. If it is simply performance on a Windows platform, then
> SQL Server wins hands down. If it is getting an application up and running,
> and you are new to SQL Server, then perhaps either DB2 or Oracle will be a
> better choice.
>
> -------------------------------------------
> BP Margolin
> Please reply only to the newsgroups.
> When posting, inclusion of SQL (CREATE TABLE ..., INSERT ..., etc.) which
> can be cut and pasted into Query Analyzer is appreciated.
>
> "Archie Dobrunk" <dbarchie_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9b0ff9c7.0107251218.758d3_at_posting.google.com...
> > I hope this does not start a flame war...
> >
> > Our company has chosen to standardize all of our servers (including DB
> > servers) on W2K. I have a fairly good understanding of the
> > differences between the big 3 DBMS's (SQL Server, DB2, and Oracle).
> > My main focus has been with one of these DBMS's on a Unix platform, so
> > currently I have little experience with Windows. What I would like
> > feedback on, specifically, is what do each of these DBMS's do to
> > exploit the Windows environment, and where are they lacking in a
> > Windows only environment. In other words, I don't care that one can
> > run on W2K, Sun, and OS/390. Our databases could grow to
> > approximately 500 GB. Thank you very much...
> >
> > Arch
Received on Thu Jul 26 2001 - 14:39:50 CEST