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: Joel Garry <joel-garry_at_home.com>
Date: 22 Feb 2006 11:13:55 -0800
Message-ID: <1140635635.866202.162150@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>

Tony Rogerson wrote:
> Guys, I simple corrected Joel or whomever it was on their original post and
> its gone from there, for each myth posted about SQL Server 2005 I've
> responded and kept responding, its not me driving this - its you guys!

You mean where I said "So that's an average of 2TB/week. Do you really defend what Tony said:
 Windows/pair of SATA drives can do that? "

Or where I said "Well, here's where I disagree. The design necessary to get SQL Server
to handle TB's of data along with random transactional queries puts the

onus on programmers to do it right. All you need is one newbie and you

are screwed. Unless you use the new feature that makes it work like Oracle. So let's see: New unproven feature or risk of manual error. New unproven feature or risk of manual error. New unproven feature that probably has bugs (like with ALL vendor databases new features), or near-100% chance of manual error.

I'll pass. Oracle handles MVCC right by default, Oracle environments have more problems with SQL-Server people who haven't unlearned doing it wrong than with the actual native environment. "

Or where I said "I didn't bother to give more specific examples of SQL-Servers'
shortcomings because it has already been cross-flamed to death (and even discussed rationally in Tom Kyte's books). I was just posting the

executive summary. Which, as Noons alluded, is probably beyond what can be inferred from the OP. "

Frankly, I haven't seen where you've disproved any of that, or where you've properly responded to Galen et al once again hashing over what I didn't even bother to rehash.

You just don't seem to get that SS has done it wrong, most all the people that use it have gotten it wrong, and they aren't going to change any time soon. You don't even see there is a problem with people waiting for blocked reads! You don't even see there is a problem with combining different transaction isolations in the same system!

>
> I've tried my best to have a technical discussion but with you and gaven its
> just impossible, you only ever post myths, hearsay and blatant lies (like
> the sap thing).
>
> I am not the troll here, remember - this message started across a wide
> number of groups and not just oracle.

So are you blaming the OP or Daniel or me?

>
> I'm done here anyway, better things to do with my time; but, its recorded
> now so I will let readers of the thread judge (and read up) for themselves,
> the truth is out there as one good tv series puts it, and its certainly
> doesn't come from you!
>
> --
> Tony Rogerson
> SQL Server MVP
> http://sqlserverfaq.com - free video tutorials
>
>
> "DA Morgan" <damorgan_at_psoug.org> wrote in message
> news:1140631660.848770_at_jetspin.drizzle.com...
> > Tony Rogerson wrote:
> >>>I do get the sound track however. It's pretty hilarious. Don't you hate
> >>>it when demo's go wrong ?
> >>
> >>
> >> I'm not responsible for the Microsoft site - take it up with them if you
> >> can't play it.
> >>
> >> Yes, sometimes it is funny; however, that demo did not go wrong !
> >>
> >> The example SQL is here:
> >> http://www.sqlserverfaq.com/controls/kbase/store/KB_31_CONCURRENCY.zip
> >
> > Tony please take a good and considered look at the following:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

jg

--
@home.com is bogus.
http://news.com.com/HP+Labs+marks+40th+with+high-tech+coffee+table/2100-1008_3-6041758.html
Received on Wed Feb 22 2006 - 13:13:55 CST

Original text of this message

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