Re: Informix limitations, should we be using Oracle?
From: Obnoxio The Clown <obnoxio_at_hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 07:53:26 +0100
Message-ID: <3DAE5E66.4050601_at_hotmail.com>
>
>
> Besides the fact that NO ONE is implementing Oracle 9i's RAC. The
> issues with the distributed lock manager still exist and always
> will...even Microsoft is grudgingly moving towards a shared-nothing
> architecture (even though it isn't going to be in Yukon as originally
> planned).
>
>
>
>
> Not until 8.40.
>
>
> 8K as well.
>
>
>
>
> A niche player. And the ODBC performance issues are largely
> invalid...ODBC is damn near identical to CLI now...
>
>
Received on Thu Oct 17 2002 - 08:53:26 CEST
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 07:53:26 +0100
Message-ID: <3DAE5E66.4050601_at_hotmail.com>
Salsa Shark wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Oct 2002 21:43:56 +0100, Obnoxio The Clown
> <obnoxio_at_hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>1. TPC-H benchmark. the XPS benchmark is pretty much two years old. >>Hardly surprising then, given Moore's law, that current benchmarks show >>better bang and better bang per buck.
>
>
> Besides the fact that NO ONE is implementing Oracle 9i's RAC. The
> issues with the distributed lock manager still exist and always
> will...even Microsoft is grudgingly moving towards a shared-nothing
> architecture (even though it isn't going to be in Yukon as originally
> planned).
>
>
>>18 characters for database objects -- Errr...128 -- did you make a typo?
>
>
> Not until 8.40.
"But since you asked, I thought I'd have a go (using XPS 8.40, the current version):"
>>Page size can only be 2 or 4k -- so?
>
>
> 8K as well.
>
>
>>Sagent supports ODBC only for Informix -- who is Sagent?
>
>
> A niche player. And the ODBC performance issues are largely
> invalid...ODBC is damn near identical to CLI now...
>
>
Received on Thu Oct 17 2002 - 08:53:26 CEST