Re: Which SQL is the best for servers?
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 13:28:46 GMT
Message-ID: <iSdml.792$hm.351_at_nwrddc02.gnilink.net>
pg wrote:
> I am involved with a SQL server project. The server would be used in a
> very heavy duty environment, with hundreds of thousands, if not
> millions of database enquiries per minutes.
>
> The server would run Linux or one of the BSD variant, with at least
> 32GB of RAM. We are not very certain of the hardware specs yet because
> we haven't decided on which SQL to use.
>
> I know that Oracle, MySQL and PostgreSQL are all designed for heavy
> duty uses.
>
> And I checked all available online resources for a SQL comparison and
> all I could find is some articles dated 2005 or so !
>
> So, here's my questions:
>
> 1. Are there any recent SQL comparison article available?
>
> 2. Since the server may come with only 32GB of RAM, which SQL can run
> the "leanest" - that is, not a memory hog?
>
> 3. The server might also become a web-server, which SQL can tie itself
> to the Web-based enquiry they best?
>
> Please give me your suggestion / opinion. Thank you !!
My requirements were much less than yours. Single-user on large workstation.
I first tried to use Microsoft Access, but it was too buggy and would not let me design a simple database. I then tried postgreSQL (in about 1996, and it did not work right -- then. So I switched to Informix, which was a pain because it did not have an interface to C++, so I had zillions of little interface routines written in C to be called from C++. But it worked with Red Hat Linux 5.0. When Red Hat upgraded that to 5.2, Informix did not work at all, and Informix was unwilling to help. At that point, I switched to IBM's DB2 and it worked fine, though it was like delivering milk with a fire truck. When I switched to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3, I had trouble getting DB2 to run. IIRC, the problem was that the interface to the raw file systems changed, and I did not want to pay to upgrade DB2. By then I looked at MySQL and postgreSWL again and I picked postgreSQL because MySQL did not handle transactions in a way I felt confident of. As far as I can tell, postgreSQL works fine the way I run it. It seems to be faster, even without raw file systems, than I managed to get DB2 to run with them.
-- .~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 08:20:01 up 26 days, 11 min, 3 users, load average: 4.23, 4.34, 4.29Received on Mon Feb 16 2009 - 07:28:46 CST