Re: Article about supposed "murky" future for Oracle

From: rkusenet <rkusenet_at_sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 09:53:27 -0500
Message-ID: <c4c1ha$2fvjhg$1@ID-75254.news.uni-berlin.de>

"Daniel Morgan" <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote

>AFAIK is not a statement of fact. The truth is that neither of us
>actually knows. And that is where it will sit until someone that
>isn't speculating weighs in.

Agreed. Now will you be honest enough to admit that your statement about MS using Oracle for their SAP application was not a fact and u just believed what was told to you.

http://www.microsoft-sap.com/docs/Microsoft%2012pg%20Case%20Study.pdf

From your other thread:-

>>it is impossible for SQL Server to produce a result set consistent to a
>>point-in-time.
>
>
> Yeah? Can you prove this?
>
>
> DG

Yes I can: The example can be found in Tom Kyte's book "Expert one-on-one Oracle" so I would suggest you read it. Then if you have any specific questions direct them to http://asktom.oracle.com.

This is hilarious. This is what you wrote earlier:-

"I'm still trying to figure out to use SQL Server to create a consistent view of data during a long transaction: It can't be done".

I thought it is clear from the above that you are speaking from your personal experience. Pooh. All you can show is a out-and-out Oracle site as a 'proof' on why it can't be done in SQLServer. Not very smart of you. This is like showing IBM site for a proof that TCO of Oracle is 3 times more expensive than DB2.

> > You know it is this kind of arrogance which ticks off many. You are
> > a c.d.i lurker too. You must be knowing some guys there who trash
> > oracle. I remember you once asked "are companies like boeing, AT&T
> > fools to use oracle and not informix".
>
> I've worked with Informix for some projects, something you well know so
> exactly what is your point?

The point is that just like you expect others to believe that big companies like BOEING are not fools to buy Oracle, I expect you to believe the same about SQLServer users. Calling SQlServer as a worthless technology is your opinion only.

> > I would, if Canadians are allowed to vote :-). And what is wrong in
> > voting for the winner. After all I know of many Informix installation
> > which switched over to Oracle just because they know Oracle won't
> > go away, even if it means shelling huge amount of money
> > to get a performance not comparable with their earlier Informix one.
>
> If Informix performance is better than that of Oracle ... perhaps you
> would be so kind as to show me and others where that is demonstrated:
>
> http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_perf_results.asp?resulttype=all

I have seen tpc results where DB2 comes at the top which they shamelessly use for pimping their product. Nothing can replace the experience of user working with a RDBMS in their shop. And if I have heard from quite a few customers about oracle performance not being good as informix on the *same* box, then may be that is something I shud remember.

> If you can't then my assumption is that you did a good job of tuning
> what you knew well. And a lousy job of tuning what you didn't know
> well. Hardly a shocker.

Of course hardly a shocker. U shud know it better. taken from your earlier posting::-

I just finished a project with a small telephone company that pushed SQL Server to the point that it croaked. We went to Oracle and even without tuning handled 10X the throughput.

Shall we conclude that u did a piss poor job of tuning SQLSever (which u don't know). hardly a shocker :-)

I am sure you will find the IT folks of following companies to be fools: http://www.microsoft-sap.com/case_studies.asp

All you have demonstrated so far is nothing but arrogance that whatever you say is right and others are technically incompetent.

rk- Received on Tue Mar 30 2004 - 08:53:27 CST