 | |
Informix beats Oracle
comp.databases.informix comp.databases.informix
 |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#11
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: Informix beats Oracle -
06-17-2007
, 10:22 PM
|
Purportedly this is the point of the TPC benchmarks - a standard benchmark in which all parties have a say, so the strengths of each should be displayed - and yet when it boils down, we are presented with meaningless TP/? numbers which measure the systems ability to execute the benchmark and are totally useless in the real world. You mean like fuel consumption ratings or crash tests? |
comment on what they do and don't like.
For the record: My Focus sucks, it uses more gas than my Elantra and is
noisy as hell. There I said it. Their is nothing Ford can do about it.
I was not forced to sign anything but the invoice.
Further I can buy any after market replacement parts and as a result a
muffler is just priced as a muffler should be.
There is something really funny about software that allows companies to
gag their customers and prevent regular market forces from working by
virtue of invoking "breach of license".
Now, these are definitely my own thoughts (most importantly IBM has no
beef with Ford I know of ;-). Although by edict from above IBM lawyers
are forbidden to place a Dewitt clause on any software product and that
is fine with me.
If we can't defend our products just like any other vendor of any other
thing, then that does not speak for those products.
Cheers
Serge
--
Serge Rielau
DB2 Solutions Development
IBM Toronto Lab
#12
| |||
| |||
|
|
Purportedly this is the point of the TPC benchmarks - a standard benchmark in which all parties have a say, so the strengths of each should be displayed - and yet when it boils down, we are presented with meaningless TP/? numbers which measure the systems ability to execute the benchmark and are totally useless in the real world. You mean like fuel consumption ratings or crash tests? |
comment on what they do and don't like.
For the record: My Focus sucks, it uses more gas than my Elantra and is
noisy as hell. There I said it. Their is nothing Ford can do about it.
I was not forced to sign anything but the invoice.
Further I can buy any after market replacement parts and as a result a
muffler is just priced as a muffler should be.
There is something really funny about software that allows companies to
gag their customers and prevent regular market forces from working by
virtue of invoking "breach of license".
Now, these are definitely my own thoughts (most importantly IBM has no
beef with Ford I know of ;-). Although by edict from above IBM lawyers
are forbidden to place a Dewitt clause on any software product and that
is fine with me.
If we can't defend our products just like any other vendor of any other
thing, then that does not speak for those products.
Cheers
Serge
--
Serge Rielau
DB2 Solutions Development
IBM Toronto Lab
_______________________________________________
Informix-list mailing list
Informix-list (AT) iiug (DOT) org
http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list
#13
| |||
| |||
|
|
"DA Morgan" <damorgan (AT) psoug (DOT) org> wrote in message news:1182106348.366899 (AT) bubbleator (DOT) drizzle.com... 1. The kernel parameters were not set per Oracle's docs. 2. No source code for the test and as everyone knows a decent developer can manufacture any result they want by using the most or least efficient method of accomplishing a task. |
Quote:
|
To give a simple example, top command shows Oracle processes right at top where as Informix oninit process somewhere at the bottom, with db2 somewhere in the middle. Sometimes I wonder whether Informix is doing anything :-) |
How busy is Informix, compared to Oracle, on this machine ? How much
work is being done by both - which system is bigger ?
Dirk
*** Disclaimer ***
The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and legally privileged and is intended solely for the addressee and to others who have the authority to receive it. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorized and as such, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted in reliance on it is unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately.
The views expressed in this e-mail are the views of the individual sender and should in no way be construed as the views of the Company.
The Company is not liable to ensure that outgoing e-mails are virus-free.
The Company is not liable, should information or data, for whatever reason, be corrupted or fail to reach its intended addressee.
The Company is not liable for any loss or damage of whatsoever nature and howsoever arising resulting from the opening or the use of the information in this e-mail, including its attachments and links.
The sender of this e-mail is subject to and bound by the terms and conditions of Company+IBk-s Electronic Communications Usage Policy.
#14
| |||
| |||
|
|
I have to play DA here. I've put some time in with Orrible. It's not a bad database. Better at some things, not as good at others. I can understand the EULA and have not challenged it - recognizing that my Orrible knowledge is only good, not great. If you let just anybody benchmark your software against another package, then the resultant benchmark will be a product of that persons knowledge of the two products. |
have specialised RDBMS skills, but in all large oraganizations
running multiple RDBMS, they do keep specialized RDBMS
skills. In the Verizon case I mentioned below, do you want
me to believe that some Oracle idiot would have tuned
it and let SS beat it.
I do think EULA is a nice way to filter out damning information,
as it use to be in former Soviet Union or Communist China.
Just a quick question. Has anyone ever read a benchmark
result from a customer where Oracle was shown to be
beaten by other database. The "written permission from
Oracle" will never be given under various pretext if Oracle
is beaten.
Quote:
|
The last time I took Oracle 10 training, the guy sitting next to me from Verizon Wireless told me that they datawarehouse application runs on SQL Server. Every year, like sessional allergies, Oracle pimps at Verizon start asking question "why are we using sequal server, we should try Oracle". But the DW folks are smarter than them. They have a canned queries when they run on two identitical databases (after allowing the oracle one to be 'fine tuned' by Oracle experts). Result: SS beats Oracle all the time and my friends colleagues tell them "Ok. this is your lesson for this year. see ya next year". _______________________________________________ Informix-list mailing list Informix-l... (AT) iiug (DOT) orghttp://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list |
#15
| |||
| |||
|
|
I have to play DA here. I've put some time in with Orrible. It's not a bad database. Better at some things, not as good at others. I can understand the EULA and have not challenged it - recognizing that my Orrible knowledge is only good, not great. If you let just anybody benchmark your software against another package, then the resultant benchmark will be a product of that persons knowledge of the two products. |
have specialised RDBMS skills, but in all large oraganizations
running multiple RDBMS, they do keep specialized RDBMS
skills. In the Verizon case I mentioned below, do you want
me to believe that some Oracle idiot would have tuned
it and let SS beat it.
I do think EULA is a nice way to filter out damning information,
as it use to be in former Soviet Union or Communist China.
Just a quick question. Has anyone ever read a benchmark
result from a customer where Oracle was shown to be
beaten by other database. The "written permission from
Oracle" will never be given under various pretext if Oracle
is beaten.
Quote:
|
The last time I took Oracle 10 training, the guy sitting next to me from Verizon Wireless told me that they datawarehouse application runs on SQL Server. Every year, like sessional allergies, Oracle pimps at Verizon start asking question "why are we using sequal server, we should try Oracle". But the DW folks are smarter than them. They have a canned queries when they run on two identitical databases (after allowing the oracle one to be 'fine tuned' by Oracle experts). Result: SS beats Oracle all the time and my friends colleagues tell them "Ok. this is your lesson for this year. see ya next year". _______________________________________________ Informix-list mailing list Informix-l... (AT) iiug (DOT) orghttp://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list |
_______________________________________________
Informix-list mailing list
Informix-list (AT) iiug (DOT) org
http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list
#16
| |||
| |||
|
|
Here is one that should give pause http://www.oracle.com/html/terms.html "the Documents may be used solely for personal, informational, non-commercial purposes" Every Oracle DBA logging onto the website stands with one food in jail... Cheers Serge |
verbiage is understandable. It means you can not resell the contents.
But if you truly believe this is a horror then this should send you
straight to your own corporate management:
http://ibm.ascential.com/company/legal.html
"You may not download or copy any Information on this Web site unless:
* you use the Information solely for personal, informational and
non-commercial purposes"
Oh my gawd ... it looks like plagiarism.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
#17
| |||
| |||
|
|
On 17 Jun, 19:10, "Data Cruncher" <dcrunch... (AT) aim (DOT) com> wrote: http://www.informixcity.com/news6.aspx I am bit anxious to know the legality of this result. Doesn't oracle have a EUA about publishing benchmark results without their written approval. I always wanted to publish benchmarks but Oracle EULA stopped me. In my view this is typically Oracle bollocks, they claim Oracle is the best and yet are allowed to gag those who may have evidence that contests this. If there EULA legal? Can they gag people like this? |
--
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)
#18
| |||
| |||
|
|
-----Original Message----- From: informix-list-bounces (AT) iiug (DOT) org [mailto:informix-list-bounces (AT) iiug (DOT) org] On Behalf Of Data Cruncher Sent: 17 June 2007 10:33 PM To: informix-list (AT) iiug (DOT) org Subject: Re: Informix beats Oracle "DA Morgan" <damorgan (AT) psoug (DOT) org> wrote in message news:1182106348.366899 (AT) bubbleator (DOT) drizzle.com... 1. The kernel parameters were not set per Oracle's docs. 2. No source code for the test and as everyone knows a decent developer can manufacture any result they want by using the most or least efficient method of accomplishing a task. [snip] To give a simple example, top command shows Oracle processes right at top where as Informix oninit process somewhere at the bottom, with db2 somewhere in the middle. Sometimes I wonder whether Informix is doing anything :-) How busy is Informix, compared to Oracle, on this machine ? How much work is being done by both - which system is bigger ? Dirk |
for the most wasted cycles?
I vote we all go back to coding in assembly language. Who will second
the motion? "POP, JMP, LODSB, NOP, STI." That was both efficient and
fun. <g>
No CTO has ever purchased an RDBMS based on efficient use of CPU.
Instead of following the bouncing ball how about asking IBM to make the
same changes to Informix they just made to Viper 2 so it will support
major business applications?
--
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)
Puget Sound Oracle Users Group
www.psoug.org
#19
| |||
| |||
|
|
DA Morgan said: Data Cruncher wrote: http://www.informixcity.com/news6.aspx I am bit anxious to know the legality of this result. Doesn't oracle have a EUA about publishing benchmark results without their written approval. Correct. A read of the PDFs shows two things. 1. The kernel parameters were not set per Oracle's docs. Which PDF was that, Daniel? The only PDFs I could see referred to Informix-only "benchmarks". They appear to be entirely unrelated to the main article. As far as I can tell, Oracle won't even install if you don't set the kernel up as per the release notes, so this is a spurious bit of misdirection on your part. 2. No source code for the test and as everyone knows a decent developer can manufacture any result they want by using the most or least efficient method of accomplishing a task. Just for the sake of the argument, Daniel, given that document talks about TPS, how would you feel if the benchmark used was a TPC-A or TPC-B style, bog-standard, clearly defined application? One where there was no real variation possible, or where they might have used a reference application? IF THAT WERE THE CASE, would you feel that this comment might also be null and void? But having said all that, like Daniel, I fear that this "benchmark" does nothing to substantiate the claims made and it would be lovely if the world was allowed to see the raw facts. I really wish IBM would stump up for a proper fully-audited benchmark. Just out of interest, Daniel, what's your personal best time for installing Oracle, given a raw, basic Unix box with nothing else loaded? The whole enchilada? Or don't you do installs? If not, what's the best time you've ever seen? -- Bye now, Obnoxio "I'm astonished anyone pays real money for this crap." -- Cosmo -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by OpenProtect(http://www.openprotect.com), and is believed to be clean. |
the real story. Benchmarks like TPC (A,B,C,D,H,etc...) are highly
specialized and aren't really tests of the DBMS, they are tests of the
hardware. The DBMS code path for these benchmarks is highly optimized
often using technology and features which cost millions to develop and
offer very little customer benefit because most applications won't/
can't use the technology that's helping achieve the winning number. I
would venture to guess that all the major DBMS players (Oracle, DB2,
Informix, Sybase, MySQL, etc) are within 10%-20% in terms of raw OLTP
performance on basic tables. Add in constraints, triggers and a few
other tid bits, you might get some more differientation. (BI workloads
are a different story!) Most of the differientiation can be overcome
with a bit more hardware (extra cpu or 2, a bit more memory). Another
aspect to consider is workload flexibility. If the workload is fairly
steady and changes slightly over time, why does one need scalability?
You only need scalability if your workload is going to change
substantially over a short period of time. Just about all the major
players also do pretty well at scalability... there are
differientiators here, some scale better than others... so if this is
the area of most concern, do diligence to understand the differences
here. Lastly, and this is where Informix shines above the others,
reliability, predictability and ease of use. There are clear
differientiators here where Informix outshines its peers with its low
administration costs, its ability to adjust to small changes in
workload, its predicitable and reliable behavior. DBAs love Informix
IDS because it makes their jobs easy. Ever wonder why there's such
passionate and loyal support for IDS? DBAs who know Informix want to
remain lazy, especially those who work in mixed shops. They spend more
effort defending their support for and promoting IDS than they spend
on maintaining their databases (not really true... but a grain of
truth there!).
Bottomline... benchmarks are very expensive to do. Do you want IBM to
pour $$ into benchmarks, or pour $$ into making IDS even better?
#20
| |||
| |||
|
|
The problem with an audited benchmark is that they often don't tell the real story. Benchmarks like TPC (A,B,C,D,H,etc...) are highly specialized and aren't really tests of the DBMS, they are tests of the hardware. The DBMS code path for these benchmarks is highly optimized often using technology and features which cost millions to develop and offer very little customer benefit because most applications won't/ can't use the technology that's helping achieve the winning number. |
introducing discrete transactions, but I'm not sure that they would still
win this race on a like for like box.
Quote:
|
I would venture to guess that all the major DBMS players (Oracle, DB2, Informix, Sybase, MySQL, etc) are within 10%-20% in terms of raw OLTP performance on basic tables. |
--
Bye now,
Obnoxio
"I'm astonished anyone pays real money for this crap."
-- Cosmo
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by OpenProtect(http://www.openprotect.com), and is
believed to be clean.
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.