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."