| Title: | DEC Rdb against the World |
| Moderator: | HERON::GODFRIND |
| Created: | Fri Jun 12 1987 |
| Last Modified: | Thu Feb 23 1995 |
| Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Number of topics: | 1348 |
| Total number of notes: | 5438 |
Someone sent around a memo about an article that was in the May 4th
issue of Computer World (I believe) that compared relational dbms
mangers. Rdb apparently scored the best.
Does anyone have a copy of that article. If you do would you be kind
enough to photo copy the article and mail it to:
Ken McMullen
TRO 3/18
I have looked in several stores and asked many people, but no one gets
that magazine. I sure hope the relational database buying public are
reading the article.
thanks,
Ken
| T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1154.1 | reprints soon | WILBRY::DUGGLEBY | Tue May 26 1992 22:00 | 4 | |
We have 10,000 reprints of the article on order. They should be in NRO
in a few weeks. You can order EC-Y0818-45. I will send you a copy of
the actual magazine (Computerworld, May 4th) via interoffice mail- I
only have a few left.
| |||||
| 1154.2 | tanxs | TRCOA::MCMULLEN | Ken McMullen | Wed May 27 1992 22:12 | 5 |
Merci,
I appreciate it.
Ken
| |||||
| 1154.3 | the CIS version | WILBRY::NEEDLEMAN | Thu May 28 1992 20:04 | 59 | |
----- DIGITAL'S RDB BEAT ORACLE, SYBASE,
|C I S| INGRES, AND INFORMIX IN A CW
-----
Source : Micro Tech Research Inc. Date : 11-MAY-92
+ - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - +
| Please be advised that the information contained within this |
+ report is copyrighted material. The following policies must +
| be adhered to: |
+ +
| - No reformatting of the data segments |
+ - No external distribution +
| - Internal use only in accordance with vendor agreements |
+ - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - +
Chelmsford, Ma., May 11/Micro Tech Research Inc./
DIGITAL'S RDB BEAT ORACLE, SYBASE, INGRES, AND INFORMIX IN A CW
COMPARISON OF MIDRANGE RDBMS.
The scale was 0 to 100. Digital's RDB received an overall rating
of 74. Highest ratings were for standard SQL support, multilevel
security functions, and service responsiveness. Lowest ratings
were for CASE tool integration, effective end-user tools, and
decision-support performance.
Oracle's Oracle rated 72 overall. Highest ratings were for
standard SQL support, useful SQL extensions, and support for
application development tools. Lowest ratings were for system
monitoring capabilities, distributed updating and recovery, and
system administration functionality.
Sybase's Sybase rated 70 overall. Highest ratings were for
performance OLTP processing, standard SQL support, and useful SQL
extensions. Lowest ratings were for system monitoring
capability, effective end-user tools, and CASE tool integration.
Ask's Ingres tied with Sybase, with an overall score of 70.
Highest ratings were for standard SQL support, application
development tool support, and multilevel security features.
Lowest ratings were for CASE tool integration, system monitoring
capability, and system administration functionality.
Informix's Informix rated last, with an overall score of 65.
Highest scores were for standard SQL support, useful extensions,
and OLTP processing performance. Lowest ratings were for CASE
tool integration, system monitoring capability, and support
quality. (CW,5/4/92,p80)
( 1 )
| |||||
| 1154.4 | Rdb Poor TP performance? | TRCOA::MCMULLEN | Ken McMullen | Thu May 28 1992 23:04 | 17 |
It is nice to see Rdb hold its own against the competition. There are a
few categories that I find it hard to believe the results. The number 4
most important category was "Performance in processing on-line
transactions" and Rdb finished tied for last! Every other report you
read about Rdb usually praises Rdb's performance. We know that Rdb
usually outperforms the other products in this article. The comment
under the VERBATIM section "It grows will with our system" also
indicates to me that performance is consistent in small and large
databases - does this mean good performance? Does anyone have any
idea why this survey ranked us so low on performance. The low marks on
performance will make it difficult to use this report in a sales
situation. The other low marks are easier to "talk around".
Also what is so different about "performance in decision-support
applications" to require a separate category. Do they mean PC server
capabilities?
| |||||
| 1154.5 | Don't have an inbuilt server | HGOVC::DEANGELIS | Momuntai | Fri May 29 1992 04:04 | 10 |
Ken, I guess they just use the product's native features - Rdb doesn't have anything in particular to support TP (except global buffers in 4.1). Ok, it does have some lock management goodies, like alg but they don't affect overall TP throughput like a db server does. ORACLE, Sybase have these in the db. We use ACMS which is a separate product. To get our TPC-B figures don't we do some special programming that effectively gives us a server? John. | |||||
| 1154.6 | 2pc release | WILBRY::NEEDLEMAN | Fri May 29 1992 15:44 | 6 | |
re .4
it is good to point out that this is based upon rdb 4.0. Our
performance release is 4.1...
B
| |||||