Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!mailrus!cornell!rochester!kodak!deal
From: deal@kodak.UUCP (Stephen M. Deal)
Newsgroups: comp.databases
Subject: Re: ORACLE on the cheap... questions
Message-ID: <1328@kodak.UUCP>
Date: 16 Jul 88 01:58:01 GMT
References: <5165@dasys1.UUCP> <8208@ncoast.UUCP> <178@turbo.oracle.UUCP> <590@hscfvax.harvard.edu>
Reply-To: deal@kodak.UUCP (Stephen M. Deal)
Organization: Eastman Kodak Co, Rochester, NY
Lines: 33

Greg - 
	As much as you tried to introduce some objectivity into the 
	comparison of DBMS products, someone will undoubtly bring
	up some facts  that you left out. Examples are: What version
	of each product was used? Did all of the products run on the
	exact same machine or did one of the products require more
	than 640k? :-) 

	In my book, benchmarks aren't worth anything unless:
		a) All the products are run on the SAME machine.
		b) Each product runs the same set of transactions.
		c) Each vendor is permitted to tune their own product.
	
	Oh yes, how many applications REALLY require 50+ TPS?

	BTW, in a recent (~May, 1988) issue of Digital Review they discussed
	the predominant VAX/VMS RDBMSs. What I found interesting is that
	in the editorial of that issue DR states that DR Labs
	has been trying to benchmark Oracle for some time. The 
	reason that they haven't done it (or published results if they have)
	is for the same reason that you gave, Oracle will not allow
	benchmarks to be published.

	Perhaps the reasoning is that the benchmark might be done improperly
	and produce erroneous results. Evidently Relational Technology took
	the risk and agreed to a benchmark of INGRES and INGRES/STAR.
	I would hope that DR continues to produce benchmarks on products
	using identical machines and transactions.

-- 
    Steve Deal	 UUCP: ..rutgers!rochester!kodak!deal

    Disclaimer:	"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, 
		 the above is mine and not that of my employer."