Re: Informix vs. Sybase vs. Oracle vs. (gasp) MS SQL Server

Steve Phelan wrote: > > Reid Fleming wrote: > > > Larry Stephenson <larrst@digital.net> wrote: > > > > > > > >Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > >> > > >> Hello, > > >> > > >> I have been asked to do a comparison of captioned database > > engines, > > >> to choose a database server for a medium size database (less than > > 2GB, > > >> about 60-100 tables). > > >> > > >> I would appreciate both pointers to professionally done > > comparisons, as > > >> well as your personal opinions on performance and reliabiilty of > > these > > >> systems. > > >> > > >> There is a special emphasis made on reliability, so your accounts > > of > > >> problems and crashes will be much appreciated. Oh yes, the > > hardware > > >> will likely be Sun or IBM RS6000. > > >> > > >> Thank you. > > >> > > >> igor > > > > > I've worked with all three. IMHO, they each have their own points: > > > > Sybase - great environment for administering or developing. The > > weakest point was its 'page-level locking'. That means that if you > > have a lot of users trying to get at the same tables, you'll often > > have users locked out. If they got this problem fixed, I'd > > recommend > > it the most. > > > > Informix - great use of processing power on SMP computers. Fast > > loads and indexing, and the OLTP seems to function well. I really > > liked the stability and reliability as well. I recommend this > > database be used for your situation. > > > > Oracle - lots of people use this. It has some strengths, such as > > row level locking, but the environment for developers and > > administrators are a little kludgy. It doesn't have some utilities > > found in Informix or Sybase, like a fast 'unload' utility for > > getting > > data out of tables. ( I hear there are some third party products > > that > > will do this). Overall very solid performance....just needs a few > > more bells and whistles. > > > > By the way, I'd highly recommend that you go with Suns over the > > RS6000. I've had experience with these databases on the RS6000's, > > the Sun servers, and HP 9000's. You really need a box that's more > > scalable than the RS6000 if you think of increasing your DB size or > > the number of users. The multi-machine approach that IBM takes > > to scalability does not work as well as a big, single box that can > > take up to 12 processors. I think the databases are just not > > written > > in a way that take advantage of them. > > > > Hope this helps > > Not quite sure what you mean by 'The multi-machine approach that IBM > takes > to scalability does not work as well as a big, single box that can > take up to 12 processors. I think the databases are just not written > in a way that take advantage of them.'? > > The IBM RS6000 J30 and R30 models can take 2, 4, 6 or 8 processors in an > SMP environment which Oracle 7 will fully exploit. How would an Sun or > HP SMP server differ? > Well 1. The CPU's in the J40 and the R40 are arround half the performance of the CPU's in a Sun EX000 or a HP. 2. You can have up to 64 CPU's in a Sun, though this is probably more then he needs :) Regards Andrew Harrison Senior Consultant SunUK