Re: Need Comparisons of Oracle 7 and Sybase 10
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 1994 16:38:35 GMT
Message-ID: <gwa.20.000BA4FD_at_cis.ml.com>
In article <dil.admin.1084.0008A0D4_at_mhs.unc.edu> dil.admin_at_mhs.unc.edu (David I. Laudicina) writes:
>Xref: commpost comp.databases.sybase:8862 comp.databases.oracle:15829
>Path: commpost!uupsi!psinntp!uunet!solaris.cc.vt.edu!news.duke.edu!concert!bigblue.oit.unc.edu!dil.adp.unc.edu!dil.admin
>From: dil.admin_at_mhs.unc.edu (David I. Laudicina)
>Newsgroups: comp.databases.sybase,comp.databases.oracle
>Subject: Re: Need Comparisons of Oracle 7 and Sybase 10
>Date: Wed, 5 Oct 1994 08:37:38
>Organization: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
>Lines: 20
>Message-ID: <dil.admin.1084.0008A0D4_at_mhs.unc.edu>
>References: <tcoxCwLt8K.2oy_at_netcom.com> <36csd7$jq2_at_dcsun4.us.oracle.com> <Cx5HvB.F7p_at_sybase.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: dil.adp.unc.edu
>X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev A]
- PC Magazine compared Oracle to SYBASE Version 4.2 which is very old code
- What does PC Week know about database anyway???
>>>The best recent comparison between Oracle and Sybase (I don't remember if it
>is >>System 10) is in PC Magazine this month. Needles to say, Oracle came out
>PC >>Magazine Editors Choice for the second year in a row...
>>>
>>>I know I am not very objective about this, but I would also look into the
>>>Sybase 10 bashing that has been going on for the last few months in PC Week, et
>>>al. Financial analysts downgraded Sybase stock to hold from buy after learning
>>>that Sybase 10 had "fundamental problems with the kernel architecture" when it
>>>came to parallel processing (SMP & MPP) systems; as you added more processors,
>>>Sybase 10 actually performed WORSE!
>I am not sure anyone seriously considering a production server would buy
>Sybase or Oracle for that matter running on a Netware OS. The real comparison
>should be made on SMP UNIX and NT boxes.
>Thx Dave L
Received on Fri Oct 07 1994 - 17:38:35 CET