Re: Beginner help needed in database design

Serge Rielau wrote:
> *beep* The TPC-C benchmark as employed by Oracle does as little prove
> that RAC scales as TPC-C does
> that DB2 + DPF scales in an OLTP environment.
> The reason being that the app was partitioned (just like the 440k TpmC
> DB2 + DPF on Win2k TPC-C result was partitioned many moons ago) and the
> load was explicitly routed for datalocality. This is the contradiction
> of the RAC premise of NOT having to change the App. TPC-C is no
> validation for RAC's scalability within the metric not supported by DB2.
> Just keeping you guys honest :-)
>
> Cheers
> Serge
>

Serge, in the interest of honesty, why not disclose the rest of it ?

Here's the partitioning statement from the DB2 SMP FDR

> All tables but ITEM were horizontally partitioned into multiple tables.
> Each (STOCK, CUSTOMER, ORDERS, ORDERLINE) table partition contains data associated with a range of 1600
> warehouses.
> Each (WAREHOUSE, DISTRICT, NEWORDER) table partition contains data associated with a range of 32,000
> warehouses.
> Each HISTORY table partition contains data associated with a range of 16,000 warehouses.
> For each partitioned table, a view was created over all table partitions to provide full transparency of data manipulation.

So lets see. That's 160 Customer tables, 8 District tables, 16 History tables, 8 New Order tables, 160 Order tables, 160 Order_Line tables, 160 Stock tables, 8 Warehouse tables and 1 Item table. Each with there own DDL statements, plus corresponding indexes, constraints etc

Here's the partitioning statement from the Oracle RAC FDR

> Horizontal partitioning was used for history table.

So thats 1 Customer table, 1 District table, 1 History table with 16 range partitions, 1 New Order table, 1 Order table, 1 Order Line table, 1 Stock table, 1 Warehouse table and 1 Item table.

Which do you think best gets close to a real world scenario ?

And why does the IBM result, which is _NOT_ even on a cluster, require significantly more partitioning, than Oracle, which is ? Received on Sat Jan 29 2005 - 23:13:12 CST