Re: Progress
This is not a technical help thread but a bit of newsgroup banter. It spins off a remark by Art Kagel that Progress is technologically comparable to OnLine 5.20 or Oracle, using one server process per client. Oracle's Mark Townsend responds dismissively and taunts the group about recent TPC-C benchmark results, while Andrew Hamm counters that only real-world tests matter, claiming IDS runs about 70% faster than Oracle on equivalent hardware. The rest is joking about trolls and wicked witches; no technical problem is posed and no resolution is recorded.
Auto-generated by DrWatson from the posts below — may be imperfect; read the full thread.
Mark Townsend wrote: > Art S. Kagel wrote: > >> Technologically it's on a par with OL5.20 or >> Orable, one 'server' task per client on the server. > > Sigh. Is that it? I was expecting something a bit more assertive... :o) -- Ciao, The Obnoxious One "Ogni uomo mi guarda come se fossi una testa di cazzo"
On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 17:57:01 +0000, Obnoxio The Clown <obnoxio@hotmail.com> wrote: >Mark Townsend wrote: > >> Art S. Kagel wrote: >> >>> Technologically it's on a par with OL5.20 or >>> Orable, one 'server' task per client on the server. >> >> Sigh. > >Is that it? I was expecting something a bit more assertive... :o) Are you feeding the trolls, again, oh Obnoxious One???
John Carlson wrote: >> >> Is that it? I was expecting something a bit more assertive... :o) > > Are you feeding the trolls, again, oh Obnoxious One??? Mark's not a troll, more of a wicked witch living in a gingerbread house, waiting for small impressionable DBA's to stumble by.
Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > Mark Townsend wrote: > > >>Art S. Kagel wrote: >> >> >>>Technologically it's on a par with OL5.20 or >>>Orable, one 'server' task per client on the server. >> >>Sigh. > > > Is that it? I was expecting something a bit more assertive... :o) > I was overwhelmed by the inanity of it. Akin to being acted by a man wielding a ripe piece of fruit.
Mark Townsend wrote: > Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > >> Mark Townsend wrote: >> >> >>> Art S. Kagel wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Technologically it's on a par with OL5.20 or >>>> Orable, one 'server' task per client on the server. >>> >>> >>> Sigh. >> >> >> >> Is that it? I was expecting something a bit more assertive... :o) >> > I was overwhelmed by the inanity of it. Akin to being acted by a man > wielding a ripe piece of fruit. > Speaking of progress (with a little p), anybody checked the TPC-C's lately ? <Smug satisfied smile>
Mark Townsend wrote: >> > Speaking of progress (with a little p), anybody checked the TPC-C's > lately ? <Smug satisfied smile> No. We're only interested in real-world performance comparisons of our own applications, for example, on equivalent iron, IDS is about 70% quicker than Oracle.
Andrew Hamm wrote: > Mark Townsend wrote: > >>Speaking of progress (with a little p), anybody checked the TPC-C's >>lately ? <Smug satisfied smile> > > > No. We're only interested in real-world performance comparisons of our own > applications, for example, on equivalent iron, IDS is about 70% quicker than > Oracle. > > Bet you did check, but :-p
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 10:27:38 +1100, "Andrew Hamm" <ahamm@mail.com> wrote: >John Carlson wrote: >>> >>> Is that it? I was expecting something a bit more assertive... :o) >> >> Are you feeding the trolls, again, oh Obnoxious One??? > >Mark's not a troll, more of a wicked witch living in a gingerbread house, >waiting for small impressionable DBA's to stumble by. > OK, thanks for the clarification.....8-) Just gotta remind the 'impressionable DBAs' to remember the bread crumbs.....