Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ncar!unmvax!uokmax!d.cs.okstate.edu!drd!mark
From: mark@drd.com (Mark Lawrence)
Newsgroups: comp.databases
Subject: Oracle Server on OS/2 versus UNIX: DBMS magazines Conclusion
Summary: UNIX
Message-ID: <1991Apr15.135105.4759@drd.com>
Date: 15 Apr 91 13:51:05 GMT
Organization: DRD Corporation
Lines: 39

ajayshah%alhena.usc.edu@usc.edu (Ajay Shah) wrote:
> 
> You carefully avoided putting any spoilers in your preview... now
> could you just do a short summary?

"Conclusion

As you can see from Figure 1 [:-)], our tuned run of UNIX Oracle for
the batch transactions ran roughly twice as fast as it had under OS/2.
While there was an anomaly during the run -- transaction 30 overflowed
temp table space, which is why it does not appear in the graph -- we
think this general range of performance improvement will hold up when
we resolve that problem.

Things are far muddier with the accounting mix performance (Figure 2).
[...]
So what's the cause of this muddiness and the partial reversal of the
general trend of better performance under UNIX?  In a phrase: We needed
more time to tune, but we had to ship it.  [...] 

Finally, we're quite sure that adding 16 more megabytes of memory,
which UNIX could make good use of while OS/2 could not, would not only
eliminate the anomaly but greatly widen the performance gap between
UNIX and OS/2 versions of Oracle Server."

(don't yell at me -- I'm just the messenger.  DBMS plans an extensive
survey/benchmarking of rdbms on several server kinds of platforms over
the next few issues.  DBMS is published by M & T Publishing, 501
Galveston Dr, Redwood City, CA 94063.  subscription inquiries to
(800)456-1859.  I've no relationship to this periodical.  I just read
it)

-- 
mark@drd.com
mark@jnoc.go.jp

-- 
mark@drd.com
mark@jnoc.go.jp