Re: Which SQL is the best for servers?

From: joel garry <>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 09:51:42 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>

On Feb 15, 10:09 pm, 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 !!

I agree with those who say you are going about this backwards. No-way no-how will a single open source os box handle millions of "enquiries" per minute.

Sounds to me like someone has an idea for some web page they think is going to attract a gazillion users. This is what I predict: You will spend $5 million over several years financed via a shoot-the-moon business plan designed to attract venture capital. At the end, it will all fizzle out after numerous rounds of layoffs.

It wouldn't be the first time. Good luck in this economic environment. That's as good a prediction as any given this amount of information. Unless the domain you are posting from indicates some religious thing. Some religious databases use Oracle.

As to the database engine: There is a reason I'm strongly biased towards Oracle. That reason being, unless there is something special about the processing involved, either exceedingly simple, complex or specialized, it is near impossible to build a bespoke system cheaper than buy and modify off the shelf software. For business systems, ACID is a very important consideration, and Oracle simply handles the concurrency issues better for most business processes. Google, for a big example, doesn't care about concurrency issues, because their business model is simply to approximate eyeballing of ads - and they don't have to account for how they measure it. This happens to be evil.

In general, it takes about an order of magnitude more people to write and maintain a custom system than implement an off the shelf system. Given the cost of a large implementation this can make sense for open source - or not. The maintenance costs are often underestimated either way, but moreso in customization. When a startup starts to transition to a business, variable costs are cut. That would be you.

Two guys and a box? I've seen that work, where a huge classical development failed - more than once. It depends. Most startups fail.

Check out Oracle XE and apex. No cost to you, and you can pay to scale as appropriate.


-- is bogus.
Received on Mon Feb 16 2009 - 11:51:42 CST

Original text of this message