Re: Informix beats Oracle

On 18 Jun, 17:07, DA Morgan <damor...@psoug.org> wrote: > d...@smooth1.co.uk wrote: > > On 17 Jun, 19:10, "Data Cruncher" <dcrunch...@aim.com> wrote: > >>http://www.informixcity.com/news6.aspx > > >> I am bit anxious to know the legality of this > >> result. Doesn't oracle have a EUA about publishing > >> benchmark results without their written approval. > > > I always wanted to publish benchmarks but Oracle EULA stopped me. > > > In my view this is typically Oracle bollocks, they claim Oracle is the > > best and yet are allowed to gag those who may have evidence that > > contests this. > > > If there EULA legal? Can they gag people like this? > > Yes. They all do. > -- > Daniel A. Morgan > University of Washington > damor...@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Sorry at the time I looked Informix DID allow you to release benchmark results. Also it seems crap, Oracle claim they have the fastest database and if I have information that disagrees then I am not allowed to present it? How is that fair? Someone should challenge Oracle about their marketing that it is the fastest database..

Actually you should be challenging Informix about _their_ non-marketing. I'm actually taking advantage of Oracle's marketing, so whatever they are doing, lies-or-statistics-whats-the-difference, I'm getting plenty of momentum off of them, and I'm not even working on Oracle directly, only indirectly. Hee-hee! Gotta love it. -t- david@smooth1.co.uk wrote: > On 18 Jun, 17:07, DA Morgan <damor...@psoug.org> wrote: >> d...@smooth1.co.uk wrote: >>> On 17 Jun, 19:10, "Data Cruncher" <dcrunch...@aim.com> wrote: >>>> http://www.informixcity.com/news6.aspx >>>> I am bit anxious to know the legality of this >>>> result. Doesn't oracle have a EUA about publishing >>>> benchmark results without their written approval. >>> I always wanted to publish benchmarks but Oracle EULA stopped me. >>> In my view this is typically Oracle bollocks, they claim Oracle is the >>> best and yet are allowed to gag those who may have evidence that >>> contests this. >>> If there EULA legal? Can they gag people like this? >> Yes. They all do. >> -- >> Daniel A. Morgan >> University of Washington >> damor...@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Sorry at the time I looked Informix DID allow you to release benchmark > results. > > Also it seems crap, Oracle claim they have the fastest database and if > I have information that disagrees then I am not allowed to present it? > How is that fair? > > Someone should challenge Oracle about their marketing that it is the > fastest database.. >

david@smooth1.co.uk wrote: > Sorry at the time I looked Informix DID allow you to release benchmark > results. > > Also it seems crap, Oracle claim they have the fastest database and if > I have information that disagrees then I am not allowed to present it? > How is that fair? > > Someone should challenge Oracle about their marketing that it is the > fastest database.. Personally I think all benchmarks are garbage dreamed up by marketers, not technologists, to help them meet their quota for units sold. The truth is that any benchmark can be manipulated to produce any result one wishes. And any benchmark is totally meaningless for comparison purposes unless one chooses to implement that benchmark software and hardware as their production system. In two hours I could write an application two different ways, run it on Oracle 10.2.0.3 and get two wildly differing results. Bet anyone halfway competent could do the same in Informix or any other product. So lets get real. How about a simple test ... inserting records into a table? Could it be simpler? CREATE TABLE t1 (pnum INTEGER, pname VARCHAR2(15)); CREATE TABLE t2 (pnum INTEGER, pname VARCHAR2(15)); CREATE OR REPLACE PROCEDURE perf_compare(iterations PLS_INTEGER) IS TYPE NumTab IS TABLE OF t1.pnum%TYPE INDEX BY PLS_INTEGER; TYPE NameTab IS TABLE OF t1.pname%TYPE INDEX BY PLS_INTEGER; pnums NumTab; pnames NameTab; a INTEGER; b INTEGER; c INTEGER; BEGIN FOR j IN 1..iterations LOOP -- load index-by tables pnums(j) := j; pnames(j) := 'Part No. ' || TO_CHAR(j); END LOOP; a := dbms_utility.get_time; FOR i IN 1..iterations LOOP -- use FOR loop INSERT INTO t1 VALUES (pnums(i), pnames(i)); END LOOP; b := dbms_utility.get_time; FORALL i IN 1 .. iterations -- use FORALL statement INSERT INTO t2 VALUES (pnums(i), pnames(i)); c := dbms_utility.get_time; dbms_output.put_line('Execution Time (secs)'); dbms_output.put_line('---------------------'); dbms_output.put_line('FOR loop: ' || TO_CHAR((b - a)/100)); dbms_output.put_line('FORALL: ' || TO_CHAR((c - b)/100)); END perf_compare; / SQL> set serveroutput on SQL> exec perf_compare(50000); Execution Time (secs) --------------------- FOR loop: 2.72 FORALL: .09 PL/SQL procedure successfully completed. Wow, look at that Oracle 10g is 3000 times faster than Oracle 10g. Maybe I should switch from one to the other. Benchmarks. ROFLOL! -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

DA Morgan said: > How about a simple test ... inserting records into a table? Could it be > simpler? [SNIP] > Wow, look at that Oracle 10g is 3000 times faster than Oracle 10g. > Maybe I should switch from one to the other. > > Benchmarks. ROFLOL! And just for the sake of the argument, Daniel, what if I ran a side by side comparison of Oracle 10g and IDS 10.0 using exactly the same C source code, with only the Pro*C headers and error functions replaced by their ESCL/C equivalents? On exactly the same tin, not even comparably configured but different servers? Would that constitute a fair benchmark? -- Bye now, Obnoxio "I'm astonished anyone pays real money for this crap." -- Cosmo -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by OpenProtect(http://www.openprotect.com), and is believed to be clean.