Re: Best database for web backend on Linux?

In article <3635472D.7A9C2E3C_at_hotmail.com>, June Tong <june_t_at_hotmail.com> writes
>Evan Carew wrote:
>
>> David Williams wrote:
>>
>>> >Glad to hear it! I'll bet you tho if it were not dependant on RLL
 (sorry but
>>> >I'm getting tired of typing row level locking all the time) one if
 not both of
>>> >the following would happen:
>>> >1. The cost of hardware for supporting the application would go
 down due to
>>> >lower resource usage
>>>
>>> What you mean 1Mb of memory to hold lock info costs a vast amout
>>> of
>>> money (Inofmrix lock =43 bytes, just how many locks do you need?)
>>>
>>> >2. The capacity and performance of your already zipy application
 would increace
>>> >noticably.
>>> >
>>>
>>> What with people wait for locks on data rows they are not even
>>> touching?? How can that be faster??
>>
>> I'm not shure, but I think we have a language problem here. What I was
>> suggesting was all that IO and ancellary CPU time spent managing RLL
>> would go away and thus improve your performance/capacity.
>
>What he's suggesting is that there should be no added I/O and the
>ancillary CPU time should be minimal if not actually non-existent.
>

  Agreed.

>
>> If I understand your argument correctly, what you are saying is that you are
>willing to pay less for development now (presumably because your design simply
>isn't acceptable without RLL) and ignore the potiential cost of
>capacity/performance based upgrades later.
>>
>
>I think what he's saying is that it is unlikely he will have to upgrade
>his hardware simply because he requires an extra 43 bytes of memory for
>each row lock.
>
>I'd suggest that your apparent disconnect is that you are arguing Sybase
>vs. Oracle, and, based on what you have said of Oracle's locking (I'll
>have to take your word for it, as I know very little about Oracle), your
>arguments are sound. However, he is talking about Informix, which
>requires no I/O to do locking, and not any significant amount more CPU
>to lock a row than a page (or even to lock several rows, vs. locking a
 Yep!
>page). Therefore, any arguments for using PLL because of faster
>performance do not apply. On the other hand, concurrency issues are
>still a factor. You are talking about trade-offs: performance vs.
>concurrency. He is saying there is no loss of performance for the
>improved concurrency.
>

   Yep! I like June...she agrees with me!!

   PS June, I've downloaded your unoffical FAQ and I'll add it to the offical FAQ soon....Just been on custmer site from Friday morning until now (just finished 6 hour drive to get home) and I'm on another customer site tomorrow. Weekend is FAQ time!   

>June
>--
>june_t_at_hotmail.com
>Grounded in Palo Alto, living on M&M's (peanut)
>
>
 

-- 
David Williams

Maintainer of the Informix FAQ
 Primary site (Beta Version)  http://www.smooth1.demon.co.uk
 Official site                http://www.iiug.org/techinfo/faq/faq_top.html

I see you standin', Standin' on your own, It's such a lonely place for you, For 
you to be If you need a shoulder, Or if you need a friend, I'll be here 
standing, Until the bitter end...
So don't chastise me Or think I, I mean you harm...
All I ever wanted Was for you To know that I care