Re: Ok, call me silly...
Not a technical support thread but a flame war between Oracle advocate DA Morgan and Informix users about whether other RDBMSs beat Informix on performance, job-market relevance, and Oracle-compatibility features. Morgan posted insert timings from a vanilla Oracle 11gR1 laptop install; Obnoxio ran an equivalent IDS 11.1 test and reported ~30% faster times, and Fernando Nunes argued point-by-point that Informix already has most of the "Oracle compatibility" features cited for DB2/SQL Server. Also noted: Oracle's licence forbids publishing benchmarks. No technical problem and no resolution — it degenerated into personal abuse.
Auto-generated by DrWatson from the posts below — may be imperfect; read the full thread.
dcruncher4@aim.com wrote: > In article <1213295315.502969@bubbleator.drizzle.com>, DA Morgan says... > >> Perhaps his was true in the 80s. Perhaps it was true in the early 90s. >> But this is 2008 and the claim is downright preposterous. When you >> stop drowning in the "we're so great" KoolAid and get in touch with >> reality you will find that there are a number of RDBMS products that >> can equal or beat Informix's performance. > > And so are there number of rdbms products which can beat Oracle > in performance. Or do you think that is not possible at all? I think there are products that can beat Oracle for storage in some areas and some environments that will fail to do so in others. The question on the table is not raw speed because if it is then you aren't going to beat TimesTen with Informix unless you have divine intervention. And, while we are on the subject of TimesTen I might point out it will also use substantially fewer resources than Informix too. The question must be phrased in the context of what that database is doing. Is there a requirement for handling DICOM data? How about rule based built-in security and encryption and data access policies? Or perhaps we need a database that allows us to manage petabytes and also provide real-time repair. Define your criteria because if you just say product A is faster than product B ... I can guarantee you my school bus will beat your Ferrari when asked to carry 60 passengers. Just as my sailboat will get from San Francisco to Hawaii a lot faster than your cigarette boat (you'll only lead for the first hour or two). > On my laptop (Ubuntu Linux).I see Db2 9.5 consistently beat Oracle 10g in > performance. I in fact see SQLite matching Oracle and DB2 in load speed. From an IBM ThinkPad T43 using an untuned vanilla install of 11gR1 SQL> CREATE TABLE parent ( 2 part_num NUMBER, 3 part_name VARCHAR2(15)); Table created. SQL> CREATE TABLE child AS 2 SELECT * 3 FROM parent; Table created. SQL> DECLARE 2 j PLS_INTEGER := 1; 3 k parent.part_name%TYPE := 'Transducer'; 4 BEGIN 5 FOR i IN 1 .. 200000 6 LOOP 7 SELECT DECODE(k, 'Transducer', 'Rectifier', 8 'Rectifier', 'Capacitor', 9 'Capacitor', 'Knob', 10 'Knob', 'Chassis', 11 'Chassis', 'Transducer') 12 INTO k 13 FROM dual; 14 15 INSERT INTO parent VALUES (j+i, k); 16 END LOOP; 17 COMMIT; 18 END; 19 / PL/SQL procedure successfully completed. SQL> set timing on SQL> INSERT INTO child 2 SELECT * FROM parent; 200000 rows created. Elapsed: 00:00:00.25 SQL> INSERT /*+ APPEND */ INTO child 2 SELECT * FROM parent; 200000 rows created. Elapsed: 00:00:00.21 SQL> Post your numbers on your Oracle and DB2 instances. > In a way I agree with you. These days almost all major RDBM's > are more or less same for 80% of work. There may be some specialized > work which some RDBMs do well. > >> If Informix is so great in 2008 you certainly can't tell that from >> the list of customers that use it. > > the same way apple customers do not tell that apple OS is far better > than Windows. Pls confirm. I think the question is simpler than this: Right this second there are 18,285 Oracle jobs at dice.com and there are only 317 for Informix. The same results hold at monster.com and hotjobs.com. If a product is being used ... then people are being hired to install it, deploy it, maintain it, develop with it. This isn't about whether product A is faster or better than product B. It is about the fact that the market has spoken and IBM is whispering. Is WordPerfect better than MS Word? It is in my opinion. Is Lotus 123 better than Excel? It is in my opinion. Can I get a job teaching Lotus or WordPerfect? Can you get a job working with them? The fact that they are better products does not mean you won't be unemployed. AFAIK Oracle compatibility features are being built into DB2 and SQL Server and not into Informix. That should tell you all you need to know. -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)
DA Morgan said: > dcruncher4@aim.com wrote: >> In article <1213295315.502969@bubbleator.drizzle.com>, DA Morgan says... >> >>> Perhaps his was true in the 80s. Perhaps it was true in the early 90s. >>> But this is 2008 and the claim is downright preposterous. When you >>> stop drowning in the "we're so great" KoolAid and get in touch with >>> reality you will find that there are a number of RDBMS products that >>> can equal or beat Informix's performance. >> >> And so are there number of rdbms products which can beat Oracle >> in performance. Or do you think that is not possible at all? > > I think there are products that can beat Oracle for storage in some > areas and some environments that will fail to do so in others. The > question on the table is not raw speed because if it is then you aren't > going to beat TimesTen with Informix unless you have divine > intervention. And, while we are on the subject of TimesTen I might point > out it will also use substantially fewer resources than Informix too. Uh ... Solid = divine intervention? > The question must be phrased in the context of what that database is > doing. Is there a requirement for handling DICOM data? How about rule > based built-in security and encryption and data access policies? Or > perhaps we need a database that allows us to manage petabytes and also > provide real-time repair. Define your criteria because if you just say > product A is faster than product B ... I can guarantee you my school > bus will beat your Ferrari when asked to carry 60 passengers. Just as > my sailboat will get from San Francisco to Hawaii a lot faster than > your cigarette boat (you'll only lead for the first hour or two). What's the bet we get a reference to Dice in a few posts time? >> On my laptop (Ubuntu Linux).I see Db2 9.5 consistently beat Oracle 10g >> in >> performance. I in fact see SQLite matching Oracle and DB2 in load speed. > > From an IBM ThinkPad T43 using an untuned vanilla install of 11gR1 > > SQL> CREATE TABLE parent ( > 2 part_num NUMBER, > 3 part_name VARCHAR2(15)); > > Table created. > > SQL> CREATE TABLE child AS > 2 SELECT * > 3 FROM parent; > > Table created. > > SQL> DECLARE > 2 j PLS_INTEGER := 1; > 3 k parent.part_name%TYPE := 'Transducer'; > 4 BEGIN > 5 FOR i IN 1 .. 200000 > 6 LOOP > 7 SELECT DECODE(k, 'Transducer', 'Rectifier', > 8 'Rectifier', 'Capacitor', > 9 'Capacitor', 'Knob', > 10 'Knob', 'Chassis', > 11 'Chassis', 'Transducer') > 12 INTO k > 13 FROM dual; > 14 > 15 INSERT INTO parent VALUES (j+i, k); > 16 END LOOP; > 17 COMMIT; > 18 END; > 19 / > > PL/SQL procedure successfully completed. > > SQL> set timing on > SQL> INSERT INTO child > 2 SELECT * FROM parent; > > 200000 rows created. > > Elapsed: 00:00:00.25 > SQL> INSERT /*+ APPEND */ INTO child > 2 SELECT * FROM parent; > > 200000 rows created. > > Elapsed: 00:00:00.21 > SQL> > > Post your numbers on your Oracle and DB2 instances. > >> In a way I agree with you. These days almost all major RDBM's >> are more or less same for 80% of work. There may be some specialized >> work which some RDBMs do well. >> >>> If Informix is so great in 2008 you certainly can't tell that from >>> the list of customers that use it. >> >> the same way apple customers do not tell that apple OS is far better >> than Windows. Pls confirm. > > I think the question is simpler than this: > Right this second there are 18,285 Oracle jobs at dice.com and there > are only 317 for Informix. The same results hold at monster.com and > hotjobs.com. Oh. My bad. > If a product is being used ... then people are being hired to install > it, deploy it, maintain it, develop with it. > > This isn't about whether product A is faster or better than product B. > It is about the fact that the market has spoken and IBM is whispering. > Is WordPerfect better than MS Word? It is in my opinion. Is Lotus 123 > better than Excel? It is in my opinion. Can I get a job teaching Lotus > or WordPerfect? Can you get a job working with them? The fact that they > are better products does not mean you won't be unemployed. > > AFAIK Oracle compatibility features are being built into DB2 and SQL > Server and not into Informix. That should tell you all you need to know. Hurrah! Daniel is demonstrably wrong! There's a new badge you can add to your collection, along with the one that says that you're a cunt. -- Bye now, Obnoxio "There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the Labour Party. They promised you order, they promised you peace, and all they demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent."
DA Morgan said:
> SQL> set timing on
> SQL> INSERT INTO child
> 2 SELECT * FROM parent;
>
> 200000 rows created.
>
> Elapsed: 00:00:00.25
> SQL> INSERT /*+ APPEND */ INTO child
> 2 SELECT * FROM parent;
>
> 200000 rows created.
>
> Elapsed: 00:00:00.21
> SQL>
Using this SQL:
create table mparent(
part_num integer,
part_name varchar(15)
);
create table mchild(
part_num integer,
part_name varchar(15)
);
create procedure morgan()
define i, j integer;
define k varchar(15);
let j = 1;
let k = "Transducer";
for i = 1 to 20000
SELECT DECODE(k, 'Transducer', 'Rectifier',
'Rectifier', 'Capacitor',
'Capacitor', 'Knob',
'Knob', 'Chassis',
'Chassis', 'Transducer')
INTO k
FROM systables where tabid = 1;
insert into mparent values (j+i, k);
end for;
end procedure;
execute procedure morgan();
select current from systables where tabid = 1;
insert into mchild select * from mparent;
select current from systables where tabid = 1;
insert into mchild select * from mparent;
select current from systables where tabid = 1;
I got these results:
Table created.
Table created.
Routine created.
Routine executed.
2008-06-12 23:11:32.734
1 row(s) retrieved.
20000 row(s) inserted.
(expression)
2008-06-12 23:11:32.906
1 row(s) retrieved.
-- First insert: 0.172 seconds
20000 row(s) inserted.
(expression)
2008-06-12 23:11:33.062
1 row(s) retrieved.
-- Second insert 0.152 seconds
Untuned, vanilla instance of IDS 11.1. Both times are significantly faster
(approximately 30%) than your untuned instance of Oracle.
Have I established bragging rights now?
--
Bye now,
Obnoxio
"There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason
and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your
panic you turned to the Labour Party. They promised you order, they
promised you peace, and all they demanded in return was your silent,
obedient consent."
In article <1213305905.186710@bubbleator.drizzle.com>, DA Morgan says... >The question must be phrased in the context of what that database is >doing. Is there a requirement for handling DICOM data? How about rule >based built-in security and encryption and data access policies? Or >perhaps we need a database that allows us to manage petabytes and also >provide real-time repair. Define your criteria because if you just say >product A is faster than product B ... what was your criteria when you said other products can beat/match Informix in performance. >Post your numbers on your Oracle and DB2 instances. I got huge set of data in text files and using a perl program I loaded them to Db2, Oracle and SQLIte. Same program, same data, except the connection parameters. We are talking about 5 tables, smallest with 4 million and largest with 11 million rows. I tried them loading serially, which means loading them one after other and parallel, meaning all tables loaded at the same time. In the first case DB2 was upto 40% faster in total time taken, in the second case, the difference went down to just about 11%. SQLite was somewhere between Oracle and DB2. Of course with SQLite i can't do parallel load since it does not allow concurrent access. BTW Oracle Express has memory limitation of note more than 1GB. So I reduced Db2 buffers also to make it approximately same as Oracle. >> the same way apple customers do not tell that apple OS is far better >> than Windows. Pls confirm. > >I think the question is simpler than this: >Right this second there are 18,285 Oracle jobs at dice.com and there >are only 317 for Informix. The same results hold at monster.com and >hotjobs.com. running away, eh? Does the market share of apple vs windows any indicator of the quality of the OS. Just answer yes or no and shove your dice/monster crap where the sun doesn't shine.
On Jun 12, 4:35 pm, "Obnoxio The Clown" <obno...@serendipita.com> wrote: > > AFAIK Oracle compatibility features are being built into DB2 and SQL > > Server and not into Informix. That should tell you all you need to know. > > Hurrah! Daniel is demonstrably wrong! There's a new badge you can add to > your collection, along with the one that says that you're a cunt. > > -- > Bye now, > Obnoxio And that's the friggin problem. See nobody knows IDS exists so Daniel's fud is believable. IBM shoots self in foot, destroying a lot of hard work done by Keesee et al. Its self inflicted.
Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > On Jun 12, 4:35 pm, "Obnoxio The Clown" <obno...@serendipita.com> > wrote: > >>> AFAIK Oracle compatibility features are being built into DB2 and SQL >>> Server and not into Informix. That should tell you all you need to know. >> Hurrah! Daniel is demonstrably wrong! There's a new badge you can add to >> your collection, along with the one that says that you're a cunt. >> >> -- >> Bye now, >> Obnoxio > > And that's the friggin problem. > See nobody knows IDS exists so Daniel's fud is believable. > > IBM shoots self in foot, destroying a lot of hard work done by Keesee > et al. > Its self inflicted. Really? Perhaps one of you gentlemen would be so kind as to point me to the list of compatibility features in the latest release of Informix. Here are the corresponding links from IBM for DB2 http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/db2/library/techarticle/dm-0707rielau/ and Microsoft http://download.microsoft.com/download/d/c/4/dc4226a3-c258-4779-bc9d-72ed4a6d30e0/Running_Oracle_Applications_on_Microsoft_SQL_Server_2005.pdf Thank you. -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)
DA Morgan said: > > Really? Perhaps one of you gentlemen would be so kind as to point > me to the list of compatibility features in the latest release of > Informix. Find it yourself, you lazy cunt. I've already jumped through your performance hoops, I notice you have fuck all to say about that. -- Bye now, Obnoxio "There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the Labour Party. They promised you order, they promised you peace, and all they demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent."
Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > DA Morgan said: > >> Really? Perhaps one of you gentlemen would be so kind as to point >> me to the list of compatibility features in the latest release of >> Informix. > > Find it yourself, you lazy cunt. I've already jumped through your > performance hoops, I notice you have fuck all to say about that. The closest you'll ever get to a hoop is the fact that it is spelled using only four letters which is pretty much the level of your discourse to date. B'ham December 1-5 if you've the courage to show yourself. <g> -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)
DA Morgan said: > Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >> DA Morgan said: >> >>> Really? Perhaps one of you gentlemen would be so kind as to point >>> me to the list of compatibility features in the latest release of >>> Informix. >> >> Find it yourself, you lazy cunt. I've already jumped through your >> performance hoops, I notice you have fuck all to say about that. > > The closest you'll ever get to a hoop is the fact that it is > spelled using only four letters which is pretty much the level > of your discourse to date. > > B'ham December 1-5 if you've the courage to show yourself. <g> Thanks, but I'm having proctology that week. I see you still don't have anything to say about the numbers? -- Bye now, Obnoxio "There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the Labour Party. They promised you order, they promised you peace, and all they demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent."
DA Morgan wrote: > Ian Michael Gumby wrote: >> On Jun 12, 4:35 pm, "Obnoxio The Clown" <obno...@serendipita.com> >> wrote: >> >>>> AFAIK Oracle compatibility features are being built into DB2 and SQL >>>> Server and not into Informix. That should tell you all you need to >>>> know. >>> Hurrah! Daniel is demonstrably wrong! There's a new badge you can add to >>> your collection, along with the one that says that you're a cunt. >>> >>> -- >>> Bye now, >>> Obnoxio >> >> And that's the friggin problem. >> See nobody knows IDS exists so Daniel's fud is believable. >> >> IBM shoots self in foot, destroying a lot of hard work done by Keesee >> et al. >> Its self inflicted. > > Really? Perhaps one of you gentlemen would be so kind as to point > me to the list of compatibility features in the latest release of > Informix. > > Here are the corresponding links from IBM for DB2 > http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/db2/library/techarticle/dm-0707rielau/ > and Microsoft > http://download.microsoft.com/download/d/c/4/dc4226a3-c258-4779-bc9d-72ed4a6d30e0/Running_Oracle_Applications_on_Microsoft_SQL_Server_2005.pdf > > > Thank you. You really don't read what you post do you?! Which in the end is hilarious... Let's see the SQL Server document... A full chapter dedicated to features used for Oracle compatibility... Let's check them one by one: - Scalability (3GB memory limmit) . Check... No problems with 64bit versions for years - Improved Case-Insensitive Search . Check... At least it looks like functional indexes to me - Large Row Support . Hmmm... would need further investigation to understand what was the limitation on SQL Server... But I don't see what is wrong in having "large" rows - Simpler Data Access Model . Nothing to do with Oracle. Specific for MS world... - Faster Enterprise Integration Manager (EIM) Load . EIM is allways funny even with Oracle. SQL server improves it with data partitioning :) - Support of Varying Size Data-Types . Check. Err... pfff.... err... no.... yes... Ok... LOL! - Snapshot Isolation . Check. - Data Partitioning . Check... With a very large smile :P - Dynamic Management Views . Check. A whole sysmaster full of them and keep increasing - 64-bit Platform Support . Check. Oldie in Unix, not so on Windows. - Index Enhancements . Check. Again, with a smile - Plan Stability . Check. Hints?! lol - Database Mirroring . Check. I can't stop smiling... - Forced parameterization . Check. Since 2005... - Online index rebuild . Check. - Dedicated administrator connections (DAC) . Check... Lots of commands don't even need a "connection" - Implied predicates optimization . Check, although this one goes deep... It will depend... So... You did it again... Posting information you collect from the Internet on a hurry, only to show you haven't done your homework and that your point of view is wrong. And of course, I could post here some more new compatibility features introduced in Cheetah (1 and 2). But as you wrote earlier, you're an usual reader of the RedBooks, so you already know about them. To be honest I don't think they're that big... But they are very useful to people porting applications from Oracle... And as you once wrote, companies like IBM don't do things for no reason. If the features are there is because customers and partners require them. As for the DB2 compatibility features, I've found some of them interesting, but then again, several of them are already there: - TO_CHAR/TO_DATE - Limit result sets (do you know that this was introduced in a fixpack release, just because a partner porting and application from Oracle required it? :) ) - Decode - Bit manipulation - Dual (lol... CREATE TABLE dual.../SELECT from sysmaster:dual....) - Inline views - Roles - Unique But hey... Now that I re-read your post... you wrote "AFAIK"... and as usually YDN (You Don't Know)... You just give the impression that you now, or even worse, YTTYK (You Think That You Know). One final note. All this features... Most of them exist in V10 (or even in v7)... So not really stuff we've put on the product on the last couple of years... Regards. And keep us entertained... It's funny... not very useful, but very funny.
On 12 Jun, 22:25, DA Morgan <damor...@psoug.org> wrote: > dcrunch...@aim.com wrote: > > In article <1213295315.502...@bubbleator.drizzle.com>, DA Morgan says... > > >> Perhaps his was true in the 80s. Perhaps it was true in the early 90s. > >> But this is 2008 and the claim is downright preposterous. When you > >> stop drowning in the "we're so great" KoolAid and get in touch with > >> reality you will find that there are a number of RDBMS products that > >> can equal or beat Informix's performance. > > > And so are there number of rdbms products which can beat Oracle > > in performance. Or do you think that is not possible at all? > > I think there are products that can beat Oracle for storage in some > areas and some environments that will fail to do so in others. The > question on the table is not raw speed because if it is then you aren't > going to beat TimesTen with Informix unless you have divine > intervention. And, while we are on the subject of TimesTen I might point > out it will also use substantially fewer resources than Informix too. > > The question must be phrased in the context of what that database is > doing. Is there a requirement for handling DICOM data? How about rule > based built-in security and encryption and data access policies? Or > perhaps we need a database that allows us to manage petabytes and also > provide real-time repair. Define your criteria because if you just say > product A is faster than product B ... I can guarantee you my school > bus will beat your Ferrari when asked to carry 60 passengers. Just as > my sailboat will get from San Francisco to Hawaii a lot faster than > your cigarette boat (you'll only lead for the first hour or two). > > > On my laptop (Ubuntu Linux).I see Db2 9.5 consistently beat Oracle 10g in > > performance. I in fact see SQLite matching Oracle and DB2 in load speed. > > From an IBM ThinkPad T43 using an untuned vanilla install of 11gR1 > > SQL> CREATE TABLE parent ( > 2 part_num NUMBER, > 3 part_name VARCHAR2(15)); > > Table created. > > SQL> CREATE TABLE child AS > 2 SELECT * > 3 FROM parent; > > Table created. > > SQL> DECLARE > 2 j PLS_INTEGER := 1; > 3 k parent.part_name%TYPE := 'Transducer'; > 4 BEGIN > 5 FOR i IN 1 .. 200000 > 6 LOOP > 7 SELECT DECODE(k, 'Transducer', 'Rectifier', > 8 'Rectifier', 'Capacitor', > 9 'Capacitor', 'Knob', > 10 'Knob', 'Chassis', > 11 'Chassis', 'Transducer') > 12 INTO k > 13 FROM dual; > 14 > 15 INSERT INTO parent VALUES (j+i, k); > 16 END LOOP; > 17 COMMIT; > 18 END; > 19 / > > PL/SQL procedure successfully completed. > > SQL> set timing on > SQL> INSERT INTO child > 2 SELECT * FROM parent; > > 200000 rows created. > > Elapsed: 00:00:00.25 > SQL> INSERT /*+ APPEND */ INTO child > 2 SELECT * FROM parent; > > 200000 rows created. > > Elapsed: 00:00:00.21 > SQL> > > Post your numbers on your Oracle and DB2 instances. > > > In a way I agree with you. These days almost all major RDBM's > > are more or less same for 80% of work. There may be some specialized > > work which some RDBMs do well. > > >> If Informix is so great in 2008 you certainly can't tell that from > >> the list of customers that use it. > > > the same way apple customers do not tell that apple OS is far better > > than Windows. Pls confirm. > > I think the question is simpler than this: > Right this second there are 18,285 Oracle jobs at dice.com and there > are only 317 for Informix. The same results hold at monster.com and > hotjobs.com. > > If a product is being used ... then people are being hired to install > it, deploy it, maintain it, develop with it. > > This isn't about whether product A is faster or better than product B. > It is about the fact that the market has spoken and IBM is whispering. > Is WordPerfect better than MS Word? It is in my opinion. Is Lotus 123 > better than Excel? It is in my opinion. Can I get a job teaching Lotus > or WordPerfect? Can you get a job working with them? The fact that they > are better products does not mean you won't be unemployed. > > AFAIK Oracle compatibility features are being built into DB2 and SQL > Server and not into Informix. That should tell you all you need to know. > -- > Daniel A. Morgan > University of Washington > damor...@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond) Let me report you to Oracle as under the terms of the license you are not allow to disclose benchmark results. I have a E4500 with 14 CPU, 14GB of RAM and multiple fully loaded A5200's at home with multiple Brocase SAN switches, if I was allowed to post benchmarks comparing Informix vs Oracle I would but I the Oracle license does not let me. Opps one less customer using Oracle...hee hee hee..