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

> 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.

Where did I state what features it was using - I didn't, stop putting words in my mouth.

I will let readers go to the articles and look and it for themselves instead of trying to pull wool over there eyes!

Again for reference as you don't seem to have gone to the source...  http://members.microsoft.com/customerevidence/Search/EvidenceDetails.aspx?EvidenceID=10013&LanguageID=1http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/projreal.mspx> "Barnes and Noble did not implement partitioned views in SQL Server 2000because of very large compile times, often in the 30 second range. "Yes, and they are not using SQL Sever 2000, but they are using SQL Server2005 - read the case study, stop taking quotes out of context and trying puta different meaning on them.>> "One thing to note is that the current implementation of Analysis Services2000 at Barnes and Noble does not create cube partitions through DSO andDTS. Partitions are created manually, a year at a time, and processing isimplemented through the Parallel Process Utility since Analysis Services2000 cannot process partitions in parallel natively."They are not using AS 2000 nor SQL Server 2000, instead SQL Server 2005 -again stop trying to mis-quote the documented case study.Try watching the webcasts.To summarise, you are probably  reading an old case study from the Oraclemarketing (bash MS) archives; I've given you the links - go and read them oris ms.com firewalled off, next time you are at B & N be sure to ask why theyuse SQL Server 2005 BI rather than Oracle's, which to me is quite strange astheir operational platform is Oracle; to me that is quite an enditement asto just how bad, inflexible and expensive the Oracle platform is!--Tony RogersonSQL Server MVPhttp://sqlserverfaq.com - free video tutorials"Mark Townsend" <markbtownsend@comcast.net> wrote in messagenews: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 don e>>>on Unisys servers.>>>>>>>>> Head in sand?>>>> I'm done here, if you aren't even going to admit it when you see it inblack and white then whats the point in conversing.>>>> For your convienience I've copied some of the text from the link Iprovided...>>>>>> Tony - We can all quote stuff. Here's some more information from the linksin what you provided. I do not believe that B&N is using the new partitionedtable capabilities in SQLServer 2005, and are using a manual partitioningstrategy instead (i.e they are using the same strategy they used in thefirst 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 adocumented 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, pleasedo advice.>> "Barnes & Noble provided the business scenario for Project REAL and thesource data set. They did this knowing that the purpose of the project wasnot to create the prec ise system that they would deploy, but to create bestpractices and instructional information for a wide audience.">> "The goal at Barnes and Noble is to eventually have 5 years of rollingsales history and 3 years of rolling inventory. They have not reached thatamount of history, so we established our own requirements on the REALproject in order to demonstrate the rollout functionality of the "slidingwindow" implementatioN">> "Barnes and Noble did not implement partitioned views in SQL Server 2000because of very large compile times, often in the 30 second range. ">> "One thing to note is that the current implementation of Analysis Services2000 at Barnes and Noble does not create cube partitions through DSO andDTS. Partitions are created manually, a year at a time, and processing isimplemented through the Parallel Process Utility since Analysis Services2000 cannot process partitions in parallel natively." Received on Sun Feb 12 2006 - 15:12:29 CST