Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!yetti!geac!john
From: john@geac.UUCP (John Henshaw)
Newsgroups: comp.misc,comp.databases
Subject: RDBMS performance - disks, cache, O/S
Message-ID: <1170@geac.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 18-Aug-87 10:17:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: geac.1170
Posted: Tue Aug 18 10:17:57 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 19-Aug-87 05:43:59 EDT
Organization: GEAC Computers, Toronto, CANADA
Lines: 24
Xref: mnetor comp.misc:1048 comp.databases:420

Every time I try to have a meaningful discussion regarding the relative
performance of various RDBMSs, the issue of comparing disk/memory performance
arises. In particular, benchmarks such as the "De Witt benchmark", or
"TP1" are well defined [:-)] in terms of what they are attempting to do,
however, the *incredible* multitude of machine configurations often
defeats the task of meaningful comparison. At best, vendors are able to
provide "best" numbers, useless to most potential customers.

Even if there are two identical hardware configurations (ha!), then one
must be careful to insist that the O/S is compiled identically,
providing the same amount of cache, etc., to executing processes. That
every RDBMS benchmarked always/never uses cache or raw partitions, etc.,
is important for comparison purposes.

So folks, how do we compare RDBMS products meaningfully? What are the
*important* issues, and how can one compensate for the *differences*? 
Has anyone attempted to catalogue a "fundamental list of prerequisites"
to benchmarking?

-john-
-- 
John Henshaw,			(mnetor, yetti, utgpu !geac!john)
Geac Computers Ltd.		"Try to fit the social norm... and be a
Markham, Ontario			 good man in a storm..."