Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: Database or store to handle 30 Mb/sec and 40,000 inserts/sec

Re: Database or store to handle 30 Mb/sec and 40,000 inserts/sec

From: Mark Townsend <markbtownsend_at_comcast.net>
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 11:34:37 -0800
Message-ID: <43EF8DCD.2020706@comcast.net>


Tony Rogerson wrote:

>>I'm sorry - but I still can't find B&N's documented reference
>>implementation in the links you provided. I can see that the Project
>>Real docs use data and a business case taken from B&N, somewhat
>>obfusticated, of course. However, the physical implementation docced in
>>the Project Real docs is _not_ what is running at B&N. For example, the
>>B&N site is using HP Servers. The Project Real implementation was done
>>on Unisys servers.
>>

>
>
> Head in sand?
>
> I'm done here, if you aren't even going to admit it when you see it in black
> and white then whats the point in conversing.
>
> For your convienience I've copied some of the text from the link I
> provided...
>
>

Tony - We can all quote stuff. Here's some more information from the links in what you provided. I do not believe that B&N is using the new partitioned table capabilities in SQLServer 2005, and are using a manual partitioning strategy instead (i.e they are using the same strategy they used in the first iteration of the data warehouse, which was built on SQL Server 2000). As such I stand by my assertion that the Project Real doc is not a documented reference implementation of what is running at B&N. It's close, but B&N does not use all the new features. If you know differently, please do advice.

"Barnes & Noble provided the business scenario for Project REAL and the source data set. They did this knowing that the purpose of the project was not to create the precise system that they would deploy, but to create best practices and instructional information for a wide audience."

"The goal at Barnes and Noble is to eventually have 5 years of rolling sales history and 3 years of rolling inventory. They have not reached that amount of history, so we established our own requirements on the REAL project in order to demonstrate the rollout functionality of the "sliding window" implementatioN"

"Barnes and Noble did not implement partitioned views in SQL Server 2000 because of very large compile times, often in the 30 second range. "

"One thing to note is that the current implementation of Analysis Services 2000 at Barnes and Noble does not create cube partitions through DSO and DTS. Partitions are created manually, a year at a time, and processing is implemented through the Parallel Process Utility since Analysis Services 2000 cannot process partitions in parallel natively." Received on Sun Feb 12 2006 - 13:34:37 CST

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US