Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!amdahl!rtech!davek From: davek@rtech.rtech.com (Dave Kellogg) Newsgroups: comp.databases Subject: Re: ORACLE on the cheap... questions Message-ID: <2316@rtech.rtech.com> Date: 13 Jul 88 03:33:41 GMT References: <5165@dasys1.UUCP> <8208@ncoast.UUCP> <178@turbo.oracle.UUCP> Reply-To: davek@rtech.UUCP (Dave Kellogg) Organization: Relational Technology Inc, Alameda CA Lines: 87 In article <178@turbo.oracle.UUCP> rbradbur@oracle.UUCP (Robert Bradbury) writes > >I *hate* statements like "wasn't too hot on the speed front". Exactly >*what* are you doing that gives you that impression? We beat Informix >and Ingres in a good percentage of the DeWitt benchmarks on a number of >machines. I have several comments on Robert's recent posting, the least important of which is that what he says above is simply not objectively true. I have neither seen a published report nor participated in any formal benchmark that would confirm his claim of DeWitt superiority. In fact, I've never participated in any informal benchmark that would confirm his claim, either. More important, however, are the two brief notes below. A Note on Standards ------------------- Just as the TP1 "standard" is elusive, so is the "DeWitt" (or Wisconsin) benchmark. In the case of TP1, vendors select whatever pieces of the well- defined DebitCredit benchmark that suit them, and call that TP1. In the case of DeWitt, vendors tend to select whatever subset of queries of the DeWitt test that suits them, and call that the "DeWitt" benchmark. There are two points which should be noted here. First, I am not suggesting that Robert's firm has used a DeWitt subset, as I am not familliar with their tests. Second, and more important, I am neither suggesting nor do I believe that there is anything inheritantly wrong with DeWitt subsets or TP1 tests (which are essentially DebitCredit subsets). DebitCredit is a tough benchmark which tests a system for a large number of factors that are important in Online Transaction Processing. TP1 tests, on the other hand, generally test only for basic transaction throughput against fairly small databases. However, this is not a question of good vs. evil as long as one *recognizes* the differences between the tests and is not mislead into mistaking a test for its distant cousin. The same argument holds true for DeWitt subset "X" vs. DeWitt subset "Y". Different benchmarks test different things, and in general, those different things bear little resemblance to any user's actual reality. Bearing this in mind could prove quite useful, as I expect the coming months to bring a barrage of numbers from all the various DBMS vendors. For further information on the "DeWitt" benchmark, see the paper entitled "Benchmarking DBMS Systems, A Systematic Approach" by Dr. David DeWitt and (I believe now, Dr.) Dina Bitton of the University of Wisconsin. I will investigate the copyright on this document and see if I am able to distribute copies to interested parties. Please send e-mail to me and I'll let you if/when I can send you one. A Note On "The Net" ------------------- I have always enjoyed comp.databases as an open, unpolluted forum for both users of commercial database products and any persons interested in DBMS systems. From time to time users may express displeasure with a given system (no major vendor has failed to be victimized in the last year or so), and the vendors have either remained silent, offered explanations, or posted re- markably unbiased postings on the technical issues regarding their products. I might add also, that I have always enjoyed Robert's postings for this same candor. This "WE beat vendor X" type quote, however, disturbs me. If this continues, and becomes standard operating procedure for this newsgroup, it could easily mean that comp.databases will degenerate into nothing more than a forum for vendor cross-fire. This degeneration is not unfeasible given that companies like Relational Technology, Informix, and Oracle employ literally thousands of people, and each could easily place a designated "net monitor" to fire back accusations at the other vendors. A little inter-vendor "teasing" is probably inevitable, but that's where I think it should stop. Cluttering the net with "WE beat so-and-so" will neither reward the readers of this group, nor, in actualitly, any given DBMS vendor. David Kellogg +-------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Relational Technology (INGRES) New York City | (212) 952-1400 ...!ucbvax!mtxinu!rtech!davek | | The above opinions are merely my own and should not be | construed as any official statement of Relational Technology +--------------------------------------------------------------------------