|
|
Posted by Tony Rogerson on 04/16/06 21:33
> I have a copy of 2003. I'll rerun the comparison this summer during the
> break.
There is no point, I'd rather trust the TPC for independence instead of what
you will produce ie. a biased benchmark based on your anti-microsoft stance
and lack of technical ability with that platform.
Like I say, check out the benchmark on tpc.org.
On checking TPC there is a comparitive benchmark where SQL Server beats
Oracle hands down on the same hardware (HP Integrity Superdome), SQL
Server -> 1.2million; Oracle -> 1million tpmC
(http://tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_perf_results.asp) - no bias there!
--
Tony Rogerson
SQL Server MVP
http://sqlserverfaq.com - free video tutorials
"DA Morgan" <damorgan@psoug.org> wrote in message
news:1145209613.444622@yasure.drizzle.com...
> Tony Rogerson wrote:
>>> No. When and where did I say "Desktop"? You said it I didn't.
>>
>> XP is a desktop OS, Windows Server editions are optimised for IO and
>> throughput and as such give better throughput than XP for applications
>> like SQL Server. There are also other considerations like, one important
>> one is disk cache - is it turned on / off, this will have a massive
>> impact on write operations.
>
> I have a copy of 2003. I'll rerun the comparison this summer during the
> break.
> --
> Daniel A. Morgan
> http://www.psoug.org
> damorgan@x.washington.edu
> (replace x with u to respond)
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|