Mark Boyd wrote:
>
> "it is simpler to use than Image"
>
> A BIGGER crock of Crapola(tm), I haven't heard since my wedding vows.
> NOTHING is easier to use than Image.
Each to his/her own, but from what I've observed, the basic
concepts of SQL and it's syntax are easier to learn to use for
data adds, updates, and retrievals. Advanced ideas and proprietary
extensions are another story. Oracle is far, far, harder to
administer than an Image database. I'm specifically addressing
the question of programming an application when I claim that SQL
is simpler to use.
Image has a SQL interface. How many people use it? Why or Why not?
>
> "the cost/performance "curve" seems to be favoring SQL more and more"
>
> A bigger crock of Crapola(tm), I haven't heard since someone said "SQL was
> simpler to use than Image". The only performance curve I've seen with SPL is
> downward. I'm currently babysitting an SQL app that is averaging 3
> transactions per second with a maximum speed of 194 transactions per second.
> These are inserts, updates and deletes that are transferred from our hp.
> Our pimply-faced gurus downstairs have upgraded the server, rebuilt the
> server, reinstalled the software, upgraded the software and can't get any
> more speed out of it.
>
Is this on Oracle? Poorly written applications can be written in
any language and use any DBMS (or other data storage). Sounds like
your "gurus" aren't really analyzing the source of the problem and
instead are just throwing things at the problem. A missing index,
badly written SQL queries, and insufficient database buffers can kill
Oracle performance, just like a missing key, a bad strategy for
retrieval, or insufficient memory can kill Image performance.
Believe me, I've had my fill of badly written RDBMS applications,
too. The hp3000-l archives contain messages about our observations
of performance comparisons. A statement job that take hours on
Oracle vs minutes on MPE.
The real question is how hard it is to learn to design and write
reasonably performing applications using SQL vs using Image, plus the
cost of the hardware needed for equivalent performance. How hard
is it to get reasonable web applications up and running.
Richard
> * Crapola is a registered trademark of Microsoft Inc.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Gambrell [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 3:28 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] Expensive RDBM Systems (Oracle)
>
> "James B. Byrne" wrote:
> >
> > On 7 Mar 2001, at 15:41, [log in to unmask] wrote:
> >
> > > This has actually been a 25-year-long running argument. Personally,
> > > I'm on both sides of the argument at the same time and could argue the
> > > merits on either side with equal conviction.
> > >
> >
> > It is the same with me. But recently I have begun to lean more and
> > more to the data management side.
> >
>
> This is a fruit to vegetables type of comparison. At the core, we
> need a strong file system supported by the operating system,
> then a transaction management journalizing system,
> then a database system,
> then a data management/dictionary system, etc.
> MPE has the first 3, but the data management layer is weak.
>
> However, we also have a world that knows SQL, maybe not well, but
> nonetheless it is simpler to use than Image. With cheaper hardware
> and more expensive programmers, the cost/performance "curve"
> seems to be favoring SQL more and more. Poor SQL coding can
> bring a system to it's knees, but so can poor Image coding or
> design.
>
> Note that Oracle offers a number of data management features
> on top of the database, but you pay a *lot* for these features.
>
> Note that things like stored procedures and triggers are
> proprietary (pl/sql), just like Image calls.
> SQL is not proprietary.
>
> Richard
>
> > Regards,
> > Jim
> > --- *** e-mail is not a secure channel ***
> > James B. Byrne Harte & Lyne Limited
> > vox: +1 905 561 1241 9 Brockley Drive
> > fax: +1 905 561 0757 Hamilton, Ontario
> > mailto:[log in to unmask] Canada L8E 3C3
>
> --
> Richard L Gambrell, Director of Computing Systems and Networks
> Information Technology Division
> University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
> 103 Hunter Hall, Department Code 4454
> 615 McCallie Ave., Chattanooga, TN 37403-2598
> voice mail/cell phone: 423-432-5122
> private e-mail: [log in to unmask]
> UTC fax: 423-755-4150
> UTC phone: 423-755-4551
> UTC email: [log in to unmask]
--
Richard L Gambrell, Director of Computing Systems and Networks
Information Technology Division
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
103 Hunter Hall, Department Code 4454
615 McCallie Ave., Chattanooga, TN 37403-2598
voice mail/cell phone: 423-432-5122
private e-mail: [log in to unmask]
UTC fax: 423-755-4150
UTC phone: 423-755-4551
UTC email: [log in to unmask]
|
