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

> I think Daniel has already mentioned a few results he's getting
> that seem to indicate a major impact on performance.
> To be expected. As I've said repeatedly here: every product is a
> "performance hero" until they are all asked to do exactly the same.
> Then we sort the real products from the amateur stuff.

And when asked to post DDL and SQL he used in his test it all went quite.

Stop taking 'hear-say' as gospel and using it for doctorine.

Instead of bleating like a sheep post some factual stuff, technical reasons why SQL Server's implementation is so poor.

-- 
Tony Rogerson
SQL Server MVP
http://sqlserverfaq.com - free video tutorials


"Noons" <wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au> wrote in message 
news:1140493020.284607.57990_at_o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...


> Serge Rielau wrote:

>

>> Uncommitted read is just fine for anything statistical.

>

> There are lies,

> damn lies

> and statistics...

>

>

>> When mining a DSS or ODS system there is no need to get exact data.

>

> Highly contingent on who you talking to. If I said that to my CIO,

> I'd probably be fired on the spot.

>

>

>> Whether someone returned a pair of shoes or not is irrelevant for trend

>> analysis.

>

> But when you get an income from every click on a search engine and

> you also get charged by the engine for a followed link, believe me:

> every single last one of them is darn important.

>

>

>> There are quite viable solutions for READ COMMITTED isolation level

>> which have the exactly same concurrency behavior as Oracle's

>> implementation of Snapshot Isolation.

>> Declaring them worse or inadequate merely by virtue of not being the

>> same is pretty intolerant.

>

> Absolutely.  I don't think anyone did.

>

>

>> what MS has delivered. None of them, so far, has justified their claims

>> on lack of scalability (beyond "it's new", it can't be trusted).

>

> You haven't used SS much, have you?  Trust me: I wouldn't touch

> anything "new" in it for a couple of releases...  Goes for Oracle as

> well, BTW!

>

>

>> Care to cough up some hard facts? Given that SQL Server 2000 is 6 years

>> old and any Oracle product that age has been called "neolithic" by some

>> posters in this group, it is much more interesting to compare the here

>> and now that the history of any vendors perceived shortcoming.

>

> I thought we were talking about SS2005 or whatever the blessed

> thing is called?  Because 2000 is indeed pre-historic.

>

>> So why is SQL Server 2005's implementation of Snapshot isolation bad?

>>

>

> I think Daniel has already mentioned a few results he's getting

> that seem to indicate a major impact on performance.

> To be expected.  As I've said repeatedly here: every product is a

> "performance hero" until they are all asked to do exactly the same.

> Then we sort the real products from the amateur stuff.

>