The Register® — Biting the hand that feeds IT

Feeds

Oracle 'cheated' in TPC benchmarks

Denies wrong doing

Ensure Ease of Recovery with Asigra’s Agentless Software

Myths and legends When database folks gather to sup ale and chat, as they invariably will at Oracle's OpenWorld in San Francisco this week, talk occasionally turns to benchmarking. As soon as it does, someone will say: "Of course the trouble is you can't trust the vendors. Wasn't Oracle caught cheating at the TPC benchmarks?"

The public has a right to know the truth...

The Transaction Processing Performance Council is a non-profit corporation that defines its role in life with commendable clarity. The organization was founded in 1988 to "define transaction processing and database benchmarks and to disseminate objective, verifiable TPC performance data to the industry".

By devising tests that ensure all systems are performance tested in the same way for the same criteria, the TPC - strangely the second P seems invariably silent - aims to provide the fairest possible comparison between systems. The TPC's earliest benchmark was TPC-A for On-Line Transaction Processing (OLTP) systems: the two most often cited today are TCP-C (a heavily revised and updated version of TCP-A) and TCP-H for decision support systems.

Each benchmarked system is given a score; the TPC-C quotes transactions per minute (tpmC) and also a Price/tpmC. These figures give customers and industry commentators a way to make meaningful comparisons between systems - and manufacturers take an even keener interest in the results.

In April 1993 the Standish Group claimed Oracle had incorporated an extra "discrete transaction" option into its product that would let it perform particularly well against the TCP-A benchmark but offered no noticeable benefit to customers. Standish opined that, by adding this option, Oracle was putting forward for testing a "benchmark special" and that in doing so the company had violated the spirit of the TPC.

Oracle vigorously refuted these claims, saying the system tested adhered fully to the published benchmark specifications. The company also pointed out that since these specs made no mention of benchmark specials, it could not possibly be in violation of anything. And Oracle was right: the TPC had no rules to exclude special editions of software for testing.

It was an area the TPC suddenly felt moved to address and by September that year a clause had been added to the specifications that prohibited benchmark specials. It came into effect in June 1994. Oracle did not test its discrete transaction-enabled version against the beefed-up benchmarks and by October had withdrawn from its literature any mention of the benchmark score gained in tests on that version.

So was Oracle's behavior legal, decent and honest?

It was certainly legal: the TPC was aware of the Standish Group's claim but never formally discussed whether Oracle had put forward a benchmark special or made any decision about it. Since the TPC never discussed the issue of "cheating" I think it is unreasonable to accuse Oracle of cheating.

Deciding whether decency and honesty were best served, though, is a matter of opinion and best left as an exercise for the reader.®

Requirements Checklist for Choosing a Cloud Backup and Recovery Service Provider

Latest Comments
Anonymous Coward

@ Amanfrommars

You are really, really annoying.

No-one cares about your mysterious conspiracy drivel.

0
0

Why now?

Ahhh, the good old days.

http://halberenson.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!4B6955036A0206AA!153.entry

0
0

You can cheat tests...

It is possible to cheat a test, if you know what is on that test. Then you could revise only those answers. In the case of a database, you only optimise the functions that are going to make the test run faster, but not necessarily optimise the database itself to have any meaningful increase in speed (i.e. the speed increases only benefit the speed test performance and not day to day). Oracle should be ashamed' Larry Ellison likes to take the p**s out of Micro$oft every two minutes when his own house is out of order.... Pot calling the kettle black anyone?

0
0

More from The Register

Bjarne Again: Hallelujah for C++
Plus: Now officially OK to admit you never used STL algorithms
Interwebs taunt Sir Jony over Apple eye candy makeover
Hey Ive, Ive... add more unicorns, willya?
SCO vs. IBM battle resumes over ownership of Unix
Zombie lawsuit back and wants to suck the brains out of Linux
Red Hat to ditch MySQL for MariaDB in RHEL 7
So long, Oracle! Don't let the door hit you on the way out
Shy? Socially inadequate? Fiddling with your phone could help
App 'tells the brutal truth' about social inadequates' chatup lines
Java EE 7 melds HTML5 with enterprise apps
New release arrives with GlassFish, NetBeans support
 breaking news
'Office Facebook' firm Tibbr wants you to PAY for mobe-meetings app
Great idea. Punters won't cough for it though
 breaking news
The only Waze is Google: Ad giant tipped to gobble map app 'for $1.3bn'
Pac-Man-satnav-ish upstart in bidding war with Apple, Facebook
 breaking news
PM Cameron calls for modern, programmable computers! (We think)
IT education musings to G8 chiefs to mystify IT industry
Apple at WWDC: Sleek new iOS, death of the big cats, pint-sized Mac Pro
CEO Cook: 'The biggest change to iOS since the introduction of the iPhone'