RE: 'Theoretical' SQL question

> > It's a sad state of affairs, and no wonder why SQL Server simply out
> > performs both DB2 and Oracle...
> 
> Larry Elison made a $1M bet that SQL Server could not match Oracle's
> performance even by 10% (I may be remembering the percentage wrong).  I
> far as I know he hasn't had to pay up yet.  Oracle still far outperforms
> SQL Server.

Oh, in addition, I think the small print for the comparison to win the money 
stated that it must be on Solaris :-)

I don't listen very much to what Elison states; he stated Oracle 9.x was 
unbreakable security wise and offered money (big money) to any one who could 
break it - I don't think Mr Litchfield has been able to retire on his dues 
yet...

--phil