For as long as there have been DBMS's and applications that use them, there has been interest in the performance characteristics that these systems exhibit. This month's column describes some of the recent work that has taken place in TPC, the Transaction Processing Performance Council.TPC-A and TPC-B are obsolete benchmarks that you might have heard about in the past. TPC-C V3.5 is the current benchmark for OLTP systems. Introduced in 1992, it has been run on many hardware platforms and DBMS's. Indeed, the TPC web site currently lists 202 TPC-C benchmark results. Due to its maturity, TPC-C will not be discussed in this article.We've asked two very knowledgeable individuals to write this article. Meikel Poess is the chair of the TPC H and TPC-R Subcommittees and Chris Floyd is the chair of the TPC-W Subcommittee. We greatly appreciate their efforts.A wealth of information can be found at the TPC web site [ 1 ]. This information includes the benchmark specifications themselves, TPC membership information, and benchmark results.

No abstract

No abstract

TOWARD A UNIFIED TEST OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION 603 "effects" test developed by the Supreme Court in the context of intentionally tortious activity committed in one state but having effects in another. 8 They also have evidenced uncertainty regarding the relationship between these two apparently distinct tests for personal jurisdiction. In the specific context of Internet activities, the courts sometimes have relied on new interpretations of one or the other of these established approaches to questions of personal jurisdiction, and sometimes have fashioned new tests not dependent upon either of them. Most recent literature in this area has focused on whether the commission of wrongs by the transmission of information over the omnipresent Internet should give rise to unique tests for personal jurisdiction and, if so, what those tests should be. 9 Our focus 8. See Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984). 9. Some commentators have argued that current personal jurisdiction law is not suited to deal with the Internet.

No abstract