Re: In Memory Databases Vs. Oracle

Christopher Spence wrote:

> I would think an in memory database would grossly outperform Oracle.
> But how to do back up? Recover? Fail Safe?
>
> If there is only small performance gain, then something isn't right.
> But I would be REAL sceptical how you can rely on this database to be
> fail-safe. Not to mention all the years Oracle has refined their
> database to a science.
>
> What's the url?
>
> On Tue, 01 Feb 2000 11:10:19 -0800, Hello <Hello_at_yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >I would like to solicit opinions and experiences people have with the
> >new "In Memory" Databases versus
> >the standard RDBM such as Oracle.
> >One example of an in-memory database is Times Ten.
> >We are an Oracle shop and have Engineers evaluating Times Ten for an
> >upcoming project, and I would like to know if anyone has experience
> >or has benchmarked/tested the two together. Looking at their Web Site,
> >I have some doubts as to whether they are worth the
> >added time and learning curve to deploy.
> >In particular, it appears that the greatest benefit (obviously) comes
> >from basic selecting of the data, and
> >the performance gain with inserts and updates isn't really THAT
> >spectacular. Additionally, for recovery purposes, they appear to
> >archive data to disk (like the redo logs pushing data to archive logs),
> >and I wonder if their performance stats take this into consideration.
> >
> >Thanks in advance for any experiences or opinions.
> >
>
> Christopher Spence
> Senior MIS Engineer
> A+ CNA Raptor

Give Oracle enough shared pool and block buffers, and your database will be in memory. How's that for a thought? --
Met vriendelijke groet/kind regards,

Frank van Bortel
Technical consultant Oracle Received on Wed Feb 23 2000 - 16:55:46 CST