<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Three ways Oracle or Microsoft could go MPP</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.dbms2.com/2007/10/12/three-ways-oracle-and-microsoft-could-go-mpp/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.dbms2.com/2007/10/12/three-ways-oracle-and-microsoft-could-go-mpp/</link>
	<description>Choices in data management and analysis</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 20 Jul 2008 01:37:11 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Echoes of Microsoft &#187; Three ways Oracle and Microsoft could go MPP</title>
		<link>http://www.dbms2.com/2007/10/12/three-ways-oracle-and-microsoft-could-go-mpp/#comment-56760</link>
		<dc:creator>Echoes of Microsoft &#187; Three ways Oracle and Microsoft could go MPP</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Oct 2007 03:04:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dbms2.com/2007/10/12/three-ways-oracle-and-microsoft-could-go-mpp/#comment-56760</guid>
		<description>[...] unknown wrote an interesting post today onHere&#8217;s a quick excerptI’ve been argued for a while that Oracle and Microsoft are screwed in high-end data warehousing. The reason is that they’re stuck with SMP (Symmetric Multi-Processing) architectures, while Teradata, Netezza, DATAllegro, and many others &#8230; [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] unknown wrote an interesting post today onHere&#8217;s a quick excerptI’ve been argued for a while that Oracle and Microsoft are screwed in high-end data warehousing. The reason is that they’re stuck with SMP (Symmetric Multi-Processing) architectures, while Teradata, Netezza, DATAllegro, and many others &#8230; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
