Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!husc6!hscfvax!pavlov
From: pavlov@hscfvax.harvard.edu (G.Pavlov)
Newsgroups: comp.databases
Subject: Re: ORACLE on the cheap... questions
Message-ID: <596@hscfvax.harvard.edu>
Date: 18 Jul 88 04:57:28 GMT
References: <5165@dasys1.UUCP> <8208@ncoast.UUCP> <178@turbo.oracle.UUCP> <296@infmx.UUCP>
Organization: Health Sciences Computing Facility, Harvard University
Lines: 25

In article <296@infmx.UUCP>, greggy@infmx.UUCP (greg yachuk) writes:

  [ re Oracle's licensing agreement forbidding publication of benchmark
    results ]
> 
> ....................  We (here at Informix) were unable to publish our
> benchmarks versus Oracle because of this very license agreement.  There
> are ways around it, though.  You just have to be sneaky (but fully legal)!
> 
  ... such as Cullinet's recent ad re VAX dbms's (last seen in June 20 Digital
      review, pages 64-65).  This one presents four of those little compari-
      son tables, comparing IDMS/SQL, Oracle, Ingres, and Rdb.  The dbms's are
      named in three of them and all are in the same order in each.  In the
      4th, "transaction processing speed", Cullinet's competitors are called
      "vendor x, vendor y, vendor z".

      One would assume that the same order was used in the transaction table
      as in the others.  If this is the case, then Oracle is the slowest of
      the four.  On the other hand, since Oracle would logically be seen as
      Cullinet's biggest competitior, then there is a chance that the order
      was shuffled, and the "slowest" is not really Oracle.......

      ad nauseum...

     greg pavlov, fstrf, amherst, ny