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 18:25:21 -0800
Message-ID: <43EFEE11.2000802@comcast.net>

>
> 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=1
>
> and this one...
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/projreal.mspx

I did go to the source.
The quotes I took are from the Project Real documentation, available at http://www.microsoft.com/sql/solutions/bi/projectreal.mspx#ECAA

>

>>"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.

I didn't say they were using SQLServer 2000, I said that they aren't using the SQLServer 2005 features as documented in the Project Real documentation. Which you claimed was a "fully documented reference implementation on how they did Barnes and Noble". It's not.

>
>
> They are not using AS 2000 nor SQL Server 2000, instead SQL Server
> 2005 -again stop trying to mis-quote the documented case study.

You just did it again. It's a documented case study of a POC, and not the B&N documented case study.

> Try watching the webcasts.

I have.

>
> I've given you the links - go and read them or
> is ms.com firewalled off,

Not at all. I have read the links. All of them. Perhaps you should try reading them as well.

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!

And that's my point. You have no idea what B&N is doing, you have no idea what they are running, you have no idea how they are using MS technology, and you have no idea why they choose to use one vendor other another. Yet, without any real knowledge, you see this as a "enditement (sic) ast o just how bad, inflexible and expensive the Oracle platform is!"

In my personal opinion these are the attributes of the worst sort of vendor bigot. One that happily spouts a marketing line without taking time to do even rudimentary due diligence. Received on Sun Feb 12 2006 - 20:25:21 CST

Original text of this message

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