Oh, Dan, I'm not that clever... ;-)
But I *can* tell you that the market leading proprietary RDBMS products we
tested were not IBM, Informix, or Sybase.
Regards,
Ned
Dan Browning wrote:
Can you tell us what version of the (ahem) unnamed
proprietary products
you used? :-). For example
Hi Adrian,
We only used the released versions of each database. We'd be happy to run
the tests again when MySQL 3.23 is official, or when Interbase ships a
real ODBC driver for 6.0 for that matter.
Regards,
Ned
Adrian Phillips wrote:
It would have been more interesting if MySQL 3.23 had
Doh! Sorry, I didn't cc Richard Brosnahan after all. He's at
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ned Lilly wrote:
Hi Jeff,
i haven't played with interbase yet, but my understanding is they have
two types of server -- the "classic" (process per connection?) and a
"superserver" (multithreaded). i'm
On Tue, Aug 15, 2000 at 12:21:25PM -0400, Ned Lilly wrote:
Oh, Dan, I'm not that clever... ;-)
But I *can* tell you that the market leading proprietary RDBMS products we
tested were not IBM, Informix, or Sybase.
And in reply to the MySQL version comment/question, Ned said:
"We only used
"Ross J. Reedstrom" wrote:
On Tue, Aug 15, 2000 at 12:21:25PM -0400, Ned Lilly wrote:
Oh, Dan, I'm not that clever... ;-)
But I *can* tell you that the market leading proprietary RDBMS products we
tested were not IBM, Informix, or Sybase.
And in reply to the MySQL version
Ned Lilly wrote:
Oh, Dan, I'm not that clever... ;-)
But I *can* tell you that the market leading proprietary RDBMS products we
tested were not IBM, Informix, or Sybase.
That's very helpful. Can you also tell us if Proprietry 1 or Proprietry
2 was definitely NOT MS-SQL Server?
Er... let me put it this way. Proprietary 2 prefers to run on Windows NT.
Chris Bitmead wrote:
That's very helpful. Can you also tell us if Proprietry 1 or Proprietry
2 was definitely NOT MS-SQL Server?
Chris Bitmead wrote:
That's very helpful. Can you also tell us if Proprietry 1 or Proprietry
2 was definitely NOT MS-SQL Server?
* Ned Lilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] [000815 18:59] wrote:
Er... let me put it this way. Proprietary 2 prefers to run on Windows NT.
It's oracle??? j/k
You have
Ned Lilly wrote:
Er... let me put it this way. Proprietary 2 prefers to run on Windows NT.
The performance is so bad it must be MS-Access :-).
Chris Bitmead wrote:
That's very helpful. Can you also tell us if Proprietry 1 or Proprietry
2 was definitely NOT MS-SQL Server?
Greetings all,
At long last, here are the results of the benchmarking tests that
Great Bridge conducted in its initial exploration of PostgreSQL. We
held it up so we could test the shipping release of the new
Interbase 6.0. This is a news release that went out today.
The release is also on
Greetings all,
At long last, here are the results of the benchmarking tests that
Great Bridge conducted in its initial exploration of PostgreSQL. We
held it up so we could test the shipping release of the new
Interbase 6.0. This is a news release that went out today.
The release is also
1) Using only ODBC drivers. I don't know how much of an impact a driver
can
make but it would seem that using native drivers would shutdown one source
of objections.
Using ODBC is guaranteed to slow down the benchmark. I've seen native
database drivers beat ODBC by anywhere from a factor
On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, Steve Wolfe wrote:
1) Using only ODBC drivers. I don't know how much of an impact a driver
can
make but it would seem that using native drivers would shutdown one source
of objections.
Using ODBC is guaranteed to slow down the benchmark. I've seen native
Marc's right... we opted for ODBC to ensure as much of an "apples to apples"
comparison as possible. Of the 5 databases we tested, a native driver existed for
only the two (ahem) unnamed proprietary products - Postgres, Interbase, and MySQL
had to rely on ODBC. So we used the vendor's own ODBC
14 matches
Mail list logo
