RE: 'Theoretical' SQL question

[Don <dr2@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Phil,

how big were the tables?   As I understand it, SQL Server can handle
smaller tables (< 1m rows) but losses it's cookies big time after that...

Don in DC



On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, Hall, Philip wrote:

> > > 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.
> >
> > James Rich
>
> I've yet to see the evidence in the real world. Been at a number of accounts 
> where Oracle has been a pig (even with good Oracle DBA's doing all they can) 
> and a SQL Server (out of the box) replacement is faster.
>
> --phil
>
>
> --
> This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
> To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
> or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
>