Re: Informix vs. Oracle
---- you wrote: > Keith, Kevin, et al: > > First, the only benchmarks that mean anything are when you benchmark your > own applications against your own data, or as closely simulated as you can > get. In that forum I have NEVER seen Oracle beat Informix on the same > hardware and dataset, not in 17 years of doing this! Right on Dude! > OK Oracle did win a > benchmark here at Bloomberg, later we discovered they had altered the > schema changing data types and record formats and they neglected to > inform us that they had failed to load up 1/3 of the sample data we gave > them! And while they reported loading 50% more rows per hour than the > Informix test (which was already in and done before they started) they > did not bring up the Bloomberg runtime environment so there would be > normal system traffic during the test which were the specified conditions > under which they were supposed to test and under which Informix did test. > I have to discount results like that and I did. But they ARE good at creating those situations and winning in them. > Let's address the TPC benchmarks. First, Informix has not published any > in a while and while politically that is BAD BAD BAD, Informix is famous > for marketing and PR blunders and that one takes the bait. Next Oracle > admitted to tweaking the operation of their optimizer to select query > paths that favor the performance of certain critical portions of the TPC > benchmarks to the detriment of query speed in general (there are reasons > why most serious Oracle DBAs shy away from using the Cost Based > Optimizer). Third the Oracle results do not show the result of scaling up > the dataset size or the number of users, these are always selected to > avoid showing the severe performance drop off, certainly compared to > Informix, of increasing database size and increasing numbers of users. > Ever notice that they do not test on a Sun E650 with 24 CPUS or an E10000 > with 32 CPUs? That is because Oracle does not take good advantage of all > those resources! > > Keith, if you really want to see which server is better bring both > companies in to prove themselves. Heck Informix even set up a bunch of > testing centers across the world so potential customers could bring in > their data and apps and spend several days (or more) playing and testing > and tweaking and tuning (all with an Informix consultant within earshot > to help out)! Does Oracle offer this service, I'd say they dare not! They like to charge for that sort of service. > Yeah, management types like Oracle better than Informix because Informix > could not sell plastic carry bags to supermarkets, but the DBA that has > used both and prefers Oracle to Informix is a rare bird indeed. Eloquent Art at his best. You're the Man! AB ---------------------------------------------------------------- Get your free email from AltaVista at http://altavista.iname.com
A bit of interesting information from PCMagazine which I noticed recently . . . a_blonde@mindless.com wrote: > > ---- you wrote: > > Keith, Kevin, et al: > > > > First, the only benchmarks that mean anything are when you benchmark your > > own applications against your own data, or as closely simulated as you can > > get. In that forum I have NEVER seen Oracle beat Informix on the same > > hardware and dataset, not in 17 years of doing this! > > Right on Dude! > > > OK Oracle did win a > > benchmark here at Bloomberg, later we discovered they had altered the > > schema changing data types and record formats and they neglected to > > inform us that they had failed to load up 1/3 of the sample data we gave > > them! And while they reported loading 50% more rows per hour than the > > Informix test (which was already in and done before they started) they > > did not bring up the Bloomberg runtime environment so there would be > > normal system traffic during the test which were the specified conditions > > under which they were supposed to test and under which Informix did test. > > I have to discount results like that and I did. > > But they ARE good at creating those situations and winning in them. > See the story at PC Magazine: http://www.zdnet.com/pcmag/stories/reviews/0,6755,408824,00.html > > Let's address the TPC benchmarks. First, Informix has not published any > > in a while and while politically that is BAD BAD BAD, Informix is famous > > for marketing and PR blunders and that one takes the bait. Next Oracle > > admitted to tweaking the operation of their optimizer to select query > > paths that favor the performance of certain critical portions of the TPC > > benchmarks to the detriment of query speed in general (there are reasons > > why most serious Oracle DBAs shy away from using the Cost Based > > Optimizer). Third the Oracle results do not show the result of scaling up > > the dataset size or the number of users, these are always selected to > > avoid showing the severe performance drop off, certainly compared to > > Informix, of increasing database size and increasing numbers of users. > > Ever notice that they do not test on a Sun E650 with 24 CPUS or an E10000 > > with 32 CPUs? That is because Oracle does not take good advantage of all > > those resources! > > . . . buncha good stuff deleted . . . John Carlson Informix DBA WHSmith USA