Re: My database is too fast

From: Teppicamon <quicog_at_hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:18:02 +0200
Message-ID: <bdpnrv$v0qdd$1@ID-162849.news.dfncis.de>

"Burton Peltier" <burttemp1REMOVE_THIS_at_bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:XR9La.3227$kx.673_at_fe04.atl2.webusenet.com...
> --
> "Noons" <wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au.nospam> wrote in message
> news:3efc225d$0$8262$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au...
> > "Teppicamon" <quicog_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:bdh5r1$srdu7$1_at_ID-162849.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > > Not at all, believe me... We wrote one application using SQLServer
that
> made
> > > some quite complex queries on a materialized view resulting of joining
> five

>
> Wouldn't you have to use MVs for queries in sqlserver because otherwise
you
> would have locking problems on the underlying tables ?

Not at all, we just used MV because they gave us better performance and let us index everything exactly the way we wanted. That's completely opposite to the MV's in Oracle, which at least in 8i turned to be even slower than doing the joins in real time (maybe it was just that we didn't do it the right way, but we had to go back to normal joins). That's actually the point with SQL Server, it's easy, it's clear, it's powerful enough and everything behaves as expected...

>

> > > tables, one of them of about 50 million rows (guess the size of the
> view,
> > > then ;-) ). Results come to the web application users (with the
network
> and
> > > asp interpretation overhead) in less than two seconds...
> >
> > I'd hate to think how long it would take Oracle if
> > Billy had counted these using a MV... ;)
>
> Probably takes Oracle about 50 msecs (milliseconds for you sqlserver
users),
> especially if a sqlserver MV is the same as an Oracle MV ?

From my experience, SQLS MV's behave far much better than Oracle's, and for your words I wonder if you're just guessing about SQL Server without having any experience with it... Why everything has to be faster in Oracle just for being Oracle??? You sound like a blind Oracle talliban shouting "Oracle has to be the best because Allah told us one century ago... Death to the unbelieving!!!" ;-)

> The comment about 1 of 5 tables being 50 million rows means nothing. The
MV
> could be 100 rows after doing the joins and then it's just a 100 row table
> (in Oracle anyway) ? So, then 2 seconds would be realllly slow , IMHO.

Blah, blah, blah... When I said it was a join, I meant it was a join. And when I let to your imagination the total number of rows, I guessed everyone would understand that the number would be several times 50 million rows... Not the case as I see. But just for the sake of information, I'll tell you it was over 400 millions rows... Now go and make a complex query against that MV and tell me if 2 seconds (and in these 2 seconds you have to include network and asp overhead) is slow...

All the best Received on Mon Jun 30 2003 - 11:18:02 CDT