mao@eden (Mike Olson) (04/07/90)
oracle does not permit customers to release benchmark information on its products. perhaps oracle's marketing department can supply you with performance numbers. mike olson postgres research group uc berkeley mao@postgres.berkeley.edu
friedl@mtndew.UUCP (Steve Friedl) (04/07/90)
> perhaps oracle's marketing department can supply you with performance numbers.
What? No smiley?
--
Stephen J. Friedl, KA8CMY / Software Consultant / Tustin, CA / 3B2-kind-of-guy
+1 714 544 6561 voice / friedl@vsi.com / {uunet,attmail}!mtndew!friedl
"How in the world did Vicks ever get Nyquil past the DEA?" - medveditz@dbase.A-T.COM (Dan Veditz) (04/10/90)
ravi@pds3 (Gorur R. Ravi) writes: >We are considering developing our dBASE apllications in Oracle (V 6) >on Prime (386) running Unix Sys V. I need to have some benchmarking >information before we take this decision. > Does anyone out there have some benchmarking information >on the performance of an application running in dBASE on DOS and the same >running in Oracle on Unix (Preferably on a 386 machine)? The Oracle license agreement does not allow buyers of the product to publish benchmark figures. It ticks-off *our* marketing department! -Dan Veditz dveditz@dbase.A-T.com { uunet | ncar!cepu }!ashtate!dveditz
tgreenla@oracle.uucp (Terry Greenlaw) (04/10/90)
In article <509@dbase.A-T.COM> dveditz@dbase.A-T.com (Dan Veditz) writes: >ravi@pds3 (Gorur R. Ravi) writes: >>We are considering developing our dBASE apllications in Oracle (V 6) >>on Prime (386) running Unix Sys V. I need to have some benchmarking >>information before we take this decision. >> Does anyone out there have some benchmarking information >>on the performance of an application running in dBASE on DOS and the same >>running in Oracle on Unix (Preferably on a 386 machine)? > >The Oracle license agreement does not allow buyers of the product to >publish benchmark figures. It ticks-off *our* marketing department! > >-Dan Veditz dveditz@dbase.A-T.com > { uunet | ncar!cepu }!ashtate!dveditz ****************************************************************************** THIS IS A PERSONAL OBSERVATION AND SHOULD IN NO WAY BE INTERPRETED AS A STATEMENT OF MY COMPANY CYA ****************************************************************************** Butt protecting personal disclaimers aside, of course Oracle wouldn't want competitors publishing benchmark results. The benchmark results we publish are all validated by independant firms that are a lot more likely to give honest answers than our competetors. I'm sure Oracle marketing will be glad to provide you with all the benchmarking numbers you would ever want, as would Ashton-Tate. I'm sure that Ashton-Tate wouldn't want us publishing our dBase benchmarking results either. Have you ever seen an ad where the company that paid for the ad underperforms the competition. "Hey, our new Grommotz 5000 gets 625 miles to the gallon of ordinary tap water (in small print "when launched from an orbiting space station"). Of course, your mileage may vary." ;-) As far as the benchmark you mentioned goes, I'm not sure what kind of numbers you would get comparing a DOS database to one on unix. The numbers for Oracle for MS/DOS against dBase and Oracle for SYSV against dBase for SYSV (?) may be better comparisons. IMHO, the only true useful benchmark is the your application after you've written it. See CYA header above. Terry O. Greenlaw Sheathed within the Walkman, Staff Engineer Wear a halo of distortion. Oracle Corporation Aural contraceptive, tgreenla@oracle.oracle.com Aborting pregnant conversation - Marillion
awd@dbase.A-T.COM (Alastair Dallas) (04/11/90)
In article <1990Apr6.194145.2101@pds3>, ravi@pds3 (Gorur R. Ravi) writes: > Gorur R. Ravi) > Does anyone out there have some benchmarking information > on the performance of an application running in dBASE on DOS and the same > running in Oracle on Unix (Preferably on a 386 machine)? I understand that part of the Oracle license restricts its users from publishing any benchmark or timing information whatsoever. I've also heard from third parties, unofficially, that it's a dog. There, I said it. Flame away--I've never even seen Oracle running. /alastair/ Big Disclaimer> I am emphatically _not_ speaking for Ashton-Tate this time.
moiram@tekcae.CAX.TEK.COM (Moira Mallison) (04/13/90)
In article <509@dbase.A-T.COM> dveditz@dbase.A-T.com (Dan Veditz) writes: >>The Oracle license agreement does not allow buyers of the product to >>publish benchmark figures. It ticks-off *our* marketing department! In article <1990Apr10.143336.2803@oracle.com> tgreenla@oracle.UUCP (Terry Greenlaw) writes: >Butt protecting personal disclaimers aside, of course Oracle wouldn't want >competitors publishing benchmark results. The benchmark results we publish >are all validated by independant firms that are a lot more likely to give >honest answers than our competetors. > >I'm sure Oracle marketing will be glad to provide you with all the >benchmarking numbers you would ever want.... I would trust numbers that come from a vendor's marketing department about as much as you trust numbers coming from a competitor. As I understand the restriction regarding publishing of benchmark results, it is not limited to competitive vendors. It also extends to independant companies that may want to implement benchmarks in more than one DBMS, and report the results. I've done some benchmarking research work, and the number of variables to control in order to get any meaningful results are greater than one might imagine. Working in a tightly knit team with frequent communication about the implementations, it still took multiple walk-throughs of the code to insure that the implementations were identical (ie that the benchmark operations were indeed measuring the same database actions). You just aren't going to get that kind of consistency measuring Ashton-Tate's marketing numbers against Oracle's marketing numbers. Certainly your application is the best measure there is of the performance you can expect, but who has time to implement an application multiple times? Moira Mallison Tektronix, Inc.
wallis@labc.dec.com (Barry L. Wallis) (04/13/90)
In article <231@arkham.enet.dec.com>, may@28182.dec.com (Patrick May) writes...
!>
!>In article <514@dbase.A-T.COM>, awd@dbase.A-T.COM (Alastair Dallas) writes...
!>>publishing any benchmark or timing information whatsoever. I've also
!>>heard from third parties, unofficially, that it's a dog. There, I said
!>>it. Flame away--I've never even seen Oracle running.
!>>
!>>/alastair/
!>>
!>>Big Disclaimer> I am emphatically _not_ speaking for Ashton-Tate this time.
!>
!>I've worked with the Oracle DBMS for a little over three years, doing design
!>and development under MS-DOS, VMS, and Unix (SunOS), and I disagree. Speed
!>has never been a serious problem when the database was well architected
!>(although I've sometimes had to play around with clustering and indexes)
!>and the tool set is powerful and allows for rapid development. It runs on
!>nearly any platform and both code and data are extremely easy to port. The
!>biggest drawback is the price.
!>
!>I've heard that Sybase is even better for development (and speed in some
!>applications) but I don't have any firsthand knowledge of that system.
!>
!>------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yo Patrick, have you used Oracle in an update intensive application on an SMP
machine or in a cluster. The single write server architecture is definitely a
drawback in that situation. I've seen known of Oracle lose benchmarks in that
situation.
---
Barry L. Wallis USENET: wallis@labc.dec.com
Database Consultant Prodigy (don't laugh): DNMX41A
U.S. DECtp Resource Center DECUServe: EISNER::WALLIS (not on the net yet)
Los Angeles, CA "I represent myself not Digital Equipment Corp."
---