jnw@cs.strath.ac.uk (John Wilson) (05/16/89)
I am just about to buy INFORMIX RDBMS, 4GL etc. It fits the bill in most respects but I have just heard that it is VERY SLOW. Apparently it spends a lot of time doing disk transfers when it should be doing something else. I have sent off for OLTP benchmarks but feel that they may not provide a straight answer. Has anyone heard similar reports or had bad experiences with INFORMIX ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- John Wilson. University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland. 041-552-4400 x3584 jnw@uk.ac.strath.cs ..!uunet!mcvax!ukc!strath-cs!jnw
jon@altos86.UUCP (Jonathan Ma) (05/20/89)
In article <124@baird.cs.strath.ac.uk> jnw@cs.strath.ac.uk (John Wilson) writes: >I am just about to buy INFORMIX RDBMS, 4GL etc. > This is so tempting, got to put in my 2 cents. >It fits the bill in most respects but I have just heard that it is >VERY SLOW. Apparently it spends a lot of time doing disk transfers >when it should be doing something else. > Funny, it always seems to rain at the parade! Stop panicking. There's INFORMIX-TURBO, which uses raw disks and shared memory, I'd recommend you to consider it. The performance is simply far better than the standard back-end, not to mention the reliability, etc. >I have sent off for OLTP benchmarks but feel that they may not provide >a straight answer. > I've used TP1, published by UNIFY, to test INFORMIX-TURBO. The result is extremely good (sorry, I can't disclose the numbers). It's better than Oracle 5.1 running on the same platform. >Has anyone heard similar reports or had bad experiences with INFORMIX ? > Boy, grow up, will you? I'm not defending INFORMIX or anybody. Nor am I trying to flame you or anybody. Your question doesn't make any sense. I'm sure everyone had bad experience with one product or another at some point. You will have to ask yourself: what's the most important factors (criteria) in selecting a DBMS? I once took a DBMS class from Management Information System (MIS) department about two years ago, we had a list of 50 criteria in selecting DBMSs. I believe none of the commercial DBMS vendors can meet all the criteria. In my opinion, all of them are alike. Searching for bug-free, excellent support, free upgrades, and super-speed software is just an impossible dream. >John Wilson.
jon@altos86.UUCP (Jonathan Ma) (05/20/89)
In article <1125@altos86.UUCP> jon@altos86.UUCP (Jonathan Ma) writes: >In article <124@baird.cs.strath.ac.uk> jnw@cs.strath.ac.uk (John Wilson) writes: >>I am just about to buy INFORMIX RDBMS, 4GL etc. >>... Sorry, forget to include the signature stuff. -Jon- Jonathan Ma, Altos Computer Systems UUCP: {sun,pyramid,amdahl}!altos86!jon Disclaimer: these views are mine, not my employers'.
jkrueger@daitc.daitc.mil (Jonathan Krueger) (05/22/89)
In article <1126@altos86.UUCP>, jon@altos86 (Jonathan Ma) writes: > Sorry, forget to include the signature stuff. No Jon, you forgot to include any performance data. John Wilson asked for benchmarks. Names of benchmarks and a assertions about results which we aren't permitted to see don't help him. Or the net in general. "Why'd you buy product X for $30K?" "Because someone on the net said that could I but know what he knows, I'd choose X over Y." Not very convincing, y'know? If you want to be helpful, how about some data? What TPS were measured, on what hardware, what software, what size tables? And of course the signature stuff, we'll weigh that in somehow :-) -- Jon Krueger --