Re: A kind of... benchmark?

Rick Denoire <100.17706_at_germanynet.de> wrote :

<snipped>
> Please be aware that I am not trying to know anything about
> performance of a specific database (meaning the schema and data
> contained therein), but about performance of database *environments*,
> i.e., the DB engine and its parameters, OS I/O system, memory
> management, CPU performance etc. I am interested in the administrative
> aspects, while efficience of work with specific relational models
> would be something related to database development.

Not sure if I follow the logic here...

At the end of day, there is no such thing as single definitive superior platform for Oracle. Even when looking at raw power, vendors are continually leap frogging one another.

Look at the business.. issues such a cost of ownership, SLAs, growth, scalebility and so on plays the deciding role. Not raw power.

What will such a benchmark prove? That one machine is "better" than another? That is pointless. Not only does technology continually change, but business requirements are not fixed either.

Benchmarks are useless IMO. They serve no purpose but as a penis enlargement for marketing & sales. It is totally meaningless in the real world.

And it is a fallacy to believe that if you have a good Oracle benchmark on a HP Superdome, that the Superdome will magically solve all your Oracle problems, fix your crappy indexing strategy, rewrite your PL/SQL to do the job properly, and make your DBA coffee when he needs it most...

Business wants the _best_ machine for the job & environment. From a business perspective, dertemining the "best machine" has _nothing_ to do with benchmarking. It is about getting the job done. Period.

--
Billy