RE: 'Theoretical' SQL question

[qsrvbas@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Tom Liotta)]

midrange-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

>   6. RE: 'Theoretical' SQL question (Hall, Philip)
>
>> > Been at a number of accounts where Oracle has been a pig
>> > (even with good Oracle DBA's doing all they can) and a
>> > SQL Server (out of the box) replacement is faster.
>> 
>> Was it a fair apples to apples comparison?
>> 
>Not in my mind, Oracle was running on a big multi-processor Solaris system 
>with a EMC (but it wasn't EMC) kind of data-rack with fibre connect.
>
>SQL Server was running on a 2-way Intel with HT and local disks.
>
>In my mind that stacks it in favour of Oracle, yes?

Whoa! Cool! That means you applied for the million-dollar payout from Oracle, 
right? How'd they fix it so it eventually outperformed SQL Server?

Tom Liotta

-- 
Tom Liotta
The PowerTech Group, Inc.
19426 68th Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032
Phone  253-872-7788 x313
Fax    253-872-7904
http://www.powertech.com



__________________________________________________________________
Switch to Netscape Internet Service.
As low as $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/register

Netscape. Just the Net You Need.

New! Netscape Toolbar for Internet Explorer
Search from anywhere on the Web and block those annoying pop-ups.
Download now at http://channels.netscape.com/ns/search/install.jsp