Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid

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: Tony Rogerson <>
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 21:27:34 -0000
Message-ID: <dso97g$fv9$1$>

> 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...

and this one...

> "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 put a 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 Oracle marketing (bash MS) archives; I've given you the links - go and read them or is firewalled off, next time you are at B & N be sure to ask why they use SQL Server 2005 BI rather than Oracle's, which to me is quite strange as their operational platform is Oracle; to me that is quite an enditement ast o just how bad, inflexible and expensive the Oracle platform is!

Tony Rogerson, SQL Server MVP Received on Sun Feb 12 2006 - 15:27:34 CST

Original text of this message