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

In article <34852035.6789@agd.nsw.gov.au>, no_sp.am@agd.nsw.gov.au says... > >Johan Andersson wrote: >> [ .. pll/rll RDBMS'es other than Informix and Sybase ..] > > Do you have any examples? > No. My point was that specific databases was not the issue. > And increasing concurrency gives you ... ? > Faster response times to the users, for example. >> The only thing the TPC-C proves is that there exists at least one >> application for which RLL / PLL is not an issue. I can see no proof whatsoever >> for this being true for all 'finely tuned' applications. > > Do you have any examples where its not the case for a > 'finely tuned' application? > No. My point was that Pablo has no proof of his statement. I have not tried to prove my assumptions. Neither have I tried to define or examplify a 'finely tuned' application. My point again is that neither has Pablo. He waved the TPC-C test as proof, IMHO this is not so, for the above reason. >> [.. my description of TPC-C ...] > > TPC-C mimics OLTP applications (which is what you've described). > It mimics _one_ OLTP application. It is a realistic application, but I can find nowhere in the TPC-C specs where it says that it mimics all OLTP applications, or even all 'finely tuned' applications whatever that is. > I don't know of any OLTP applications that are batch jobs. Do you? > The combination of batch an OLTP is not unexistant, why? >> It would be very interesting seeing a test that measured how an RDBMS >> performed under the load of transactions of ever increasing complexity. > > Do you know of any applications that run with ever increasing > complexity? An OLTP application does essentially the same thing > over and over. Only its data changes. > No, but I assume that different OLTP applications have different transaction complexity. The complexity could also be user driven, ie an application where the complexity of a transaction varies depending on what the user does. Where is your proof that _all_ OLTP applications 'does the same thing over and over'? >> We have seen a number of examples in this thread of applications that would >> benefit from RLL. My point is that the TPC-C alone is not enough to state that >> these examples are irrelevant. > > Which examples whould they be? I haven't seen one concrete example > yet that absolutely mandates RLL. > There have been examples. Whether they 'absolutely mandate RLL' is under debate. I have no proof either way. My point is that the TPC-C test alone is no proof these examples are false which means I have seen no proof that they 'do not mandate RLL' either. /Johan -- ________________________________________________________________________ | >>> The opinions herein are mine and not neccessarily my employers <<< | | Johan Andersson, Msc CSE jna@carmenta.se | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~