Chris Richardson wrote: > ... The Koreans did publish the results of one benchmark > they did in one of the Last MUG Quarterlies. The results were astounding. > Same hardware, same load, same task took the relationals 6 hours or more to > complete. MUMPS took something less than one hour to complete. > I found one M Computing Article (Title Only) Volume 5, Number 3, August 1997 The Superiority of M-Technology for a Hospital Information System, part II, Comparison of System Performance between Ingres and Open M
Can't find Part I, but there turns out to be a part III with a very interesting abstract: The Superiority of M-Technology for the Hospital Information System: III. comparison of system performance between Relational Database Management System and M-Technology (Superiority of M in HIS). Jeon JH, Kwak YS, Cho H, Kim HS J Korean Soc Med Inform. 1998 Dec;4(Dec):43-48. Korean. In 1994, Ajou University Medical Center implemented a hospital information system with a relational database management system(Ingres) and underwent migration using newly improved M technology in 1996. In this paper, a comparison study of database performance between M and RDBMS is presented. Three different types of comparative studies were carried out on the performances of Ingres, Oracle 7.1 (Oracle) and M-Technology(Mumps). Two types of M are adopted to compare with Ingres: Standard M and Open M. The open M was used for DBMS and Standard M was used for writing applications. The system response time was compared by a simple bulk test in a simulated HIS environment. It was found that the performance of Open M was about 100 times faster than that of Ingres. In the live HIS environment, the performance of Open M was found to be 2-8 times faster than Ingres depending on the number of globals involved in the processing of transactions. The performance of Standard M and MSM-SQL was compared with that of Oracle by a simple bulk test in a simulated HIS environment and found that Standard M was more than 100 times faster than Oracle and MSM-SQL was on an average. 1.7 times faster than Oracle. The M was faster than Ingres and Oracle. Despite the cons of RDBMS already discussed, we have found very few pros of RDBMS if M is applied. We have found that conventional RDBMS requires redundant hardware resources which result in slow processing time which HIS manifests in a serious bottleneck during the course of our development and implementation. The performance of M strongly implies that M is most appropriate DB in a HIS environment. http://www.koreamed.org/SearchBasic.php?RID=99408&DT=1&QY=%22J+Korean+Soc+Med++Inform%22+%5BJTI%5D+AND+1998+%5BDPY%5D (beware the wrapped URL) ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: NEC IT Guy Games. How far can you shotput a projector? How fast can you ride your desk chair down the office luge track? If you want to score the big prize, get to know the little guy. Play to win an NEC 61" plasma display: http://www.necitguy.com/?r=20 _______________________________________________ Hardhats-members mailing list Hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
