Although it was came from IBM. I couldn't accept the performance(and/or usefuleness) of solid.

My issues for advantages of solid are.....
0) It costs some 10 sousand dollers adding to cost of DB2(or other DISK based DBMS) and needs additional server(s) for solid.
1) If it was so high performance, why they(solid and/or IBM) didn't sohw the result of TPC( benchmark?
2) Although solid(and IBM?) showed the result of TM1 benchmark comparing with DB2, the result of solid was backed by DB2. It was not gernuine solid performance. (I want see the performance with ACID which would be the minimum requirements of DBMS.)
3) My basic question is that if considering the configuration which was added extra main memory(same size for solid server of TM1 benchnark) in the DB2 server(s) and devote it for DB2's specific bufferpool(particulary similar with solid memory in TM1 benchmark),
then comparing with that configuration and solid bucked with DB2(or other DISK based DBMS like Informix, Oracle, etc.), was realy solid was 10 times faster performance than genuine DB2?

I couldn't find acceptable explanation for my questions in solid site.
solid only insists their performasnce with no answers for my questions( 1), 2), and 3) ) as far as I know.

I would appreciate it if someone would show me more rational explanations(documents or web pages, so on) or point out my misunderstandings.