Re: Timesten Vs. Oracle

From: Nuno Souto <dbvision_at_optusnet.com.au>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 23:06:43 +1100
Message-ID: <006e01c4132b$05631ec0$9b00a8c0@dcs001>

Original Message ----- From: "Anjo Kolk" <anjo_at_oraperf.com>

> MySQL, I am not kidding

Hehehe! You're not wrong...

> Justin Cave wrote
> If you have a small, read-only or read-mostly database where you can
> afford to lose updates, an in-memory database is probably ideal.
> Otherwise, stick with the traditional database.

If you have a small, read-only or read-mostly(WTF???) database where you can afford to lose updates, you have rocks in your head if you use a database!

The proper structure was invented over 50 years ago and it's called an array. OK, let's forward the clock a few years and call it a stack.

A database? You gotta be joking...

> TimesTen is supposed to guarantee no loss of data under certain
> configurations.

I hate these open "certain configurations" statements. Always reminds me of "if I had two heads I could eat twice as fast, think twice as fast and make the same errors twice as fast"...

> However that is balanced by the requirement to have 2
> copies running and the probability of having to load a backup copy and
> then apply the journal.

Yaba-dahba-doo! Regular as clockwork: good old mirroring. No clue whatsoever...

Cheers
Nuno Souto
in sunny Sydney, Australia
dbvision_at_optusnet.com.au

Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com

To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request_at_freelists.org put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.

--
Archives are at http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Fri Mar 26 2004 - 06:04:52 CST

Re: Timesten Vs. Oracle - Performance