Re: No future for DB2

DA Morgan said: > > Comments in-line. > > Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >> DA Morgan said: >> >>>Larry wrote: >>> >>>>I don't think you could convince the Oracle marketing people of that >>>> for >>>>the temporary periods when they have been in the lead ... >>> >>>I agree. But then I can't imagine why any serious technologist would >>>feel otherwise. >> >> >> I don't know that I am a serious technologist, but here are some >> pro-TPC-C >> comments (given that it's C that seems to be the contentious one -- H >> and >> DS don't seem to enjoy the same level of abuse): >> >> 1. A TPC-C benchmark will never prove anything about my specific >> application, but presence in the TPC-C benchmarks shows that my >> vendor(s) >> take the business of transaction processing performance seriously. > > I disagree. My vendor's TPC benchmark demonstrates their willingness to > spend money in the hope of getting something they can use in a magazine > advertisement to impress CTOs that are lacking in analysis skills. You can disagree all you like. There are far more cost-effective ways of getting C-level attention. If you were to take the entire Fortune 100 list of CTO's out for a day's golf, it would cost less than a single TPC-C benchmark. >> 2. Running TPC-C benchmarks and artificially stressing the database is >> another form of QA, and can identify bottlenecks that only occur in >> extremis. This can lead to significant improvements in in product >> quality >> and performance overall. > > Here I agree. But that benefit happens in the QA lab of the vendor. They > have those bugs worked out before sumitting their product for testing. > Thus the results of the test, the metrics, are still without value. Not so. They may run "lite" versions of the TPC in the labs, but there is a big difference between what happens at "adequate" levels and what happens when you are pushing the envelope. >> 3. Most businesses (and I really mean most businesses, even the largest >> corporations in my [admittedly limited] experience) do not have the >> budget >> and, more importantly, the resourcing for proper benchmarking of >> anything >> but the most performance-critical applications. > > I think it is more a lack of skill and lazyiness than a lack of budget > but I again agree. But your argument reads like this: > > "We need to do something. Jumping off a cliff is something. Therefore we > need to jump off a cliff." I think you need to stop drinking when you're posting Daniel. Don't put words in my mouth that definitely aren't there. > The fact that an organization can't/won't benchmark their own > application hardly equates to using some irrelevant but published metric > as a substitute. You're right. But that doesn't stop people from doing it. Anyway, nowadays, no-one buys their database because of the TPC number that's attached to it. But (in my experience) people who perceive that they have a performance requirement would only consider TPC-tested products, because they are seen as products worthy of consideration. > 2. Install SAP, PeopleSoft, Oracle Apps, or Siebel But what if you don't run any of those things? What about product customisations? Your benchmark is just as artificial and irrelevant as a TPC. :o) -- Bye now, Obnoxio "C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien ' dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule" - Coluche A smile is a gift that is free to the giver and precious to the recipient. But giving someone the finger is free too, and I find it more personal and sincere. sending to informix-list

Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >>The fact that an organization can't/won't benchmark their own >>application hardly equates to using some irrelevant but published metric >>as a substitute. > > You're right. But that doesn't stop people from doing it. Nor does information about the dangers of smoking stop people from lighting up. People have a right to behave as stupidly as they wish. >>2. Install SAP, PeopleSoft, Oracle Apps, or Siebel > > But what if you don't run any of those things? What about product > customisations? Your benchmark is just as artificial and irrelevant as a > TPC. :o) But SAP, PeopleSoft, Oracle Apps and Siebel are of interest to a very large number of businesses worldwide. Can you name one business that runs TPC in production? Some value is better than no value. -- Daniel A. Morgan http://www.psoug.org damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)