Re: Which SQL is the best for servers?
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 13:57:13 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <77f2e3c9-37d2-4071-ab4e-b20a92b5ae9a_at_v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com>
On Feb 16, 11:12 am, Paulie <linehan.p..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 5:51 pm, joel garry <joel-ga..._at_home.com> wrote:
>
> > Check out Oracle XE and apex. No cost to you, and you can pay to
> > scale as appropriate.
>
> Before rushing to download Oracle XE, check out
>
> http://www.oracle.com/technology/pub/articles/cunningham-database-xe....
>
> Limitations.
> 1 GB of RAM (OP has 32),
> 1 CPU (with 32GB of RAM?) and a
> 4GD data limit.
>
> For millions of queries per hour? For POC of an app, this is fine,
> however for
> performance testing, it's a non-runner.
I guess I wasn't clear enough on the "and you can pay to scale as appropriate."
For testing/development purposes, you can download the various editions of Oracle and see what they can do. The XE/Apex (or whatever development environs) is just for getting something working quick. When you see what the other editions can do, then you decide what you need - plus you can decide on the low end, not a big deal to move up if the situation warrants. The patching issue Troels mentioned may or may not make a difference for a production environment exposed to the world, but I'm not advocating XE for this in production, just for developing.
Of course, one usual screwup is testing time/volume of rows returned, where some toy db can outperform Oracle. Real performance testing requires realistic load tests, and that can be a lot of work, especially for a small group with one box.
>
> You are allowed AFAIK, download the full server for testing (but not
> deployment). The OP hasn't really given the group enough information
> about the system for anyone here to be able to answer any
> serious questions about an app that's (supposedly) going
> to be almost as busy as Google!
I think we may all agree on this!
>
> No CPU data, no disk array data - they haven't even chosen
> an OS and are not sure where to put their web server (and
> no mention of an app server tier!).
Since they seem uncertain of actual volume, all these things need to be put in terms of a scalability plan.
>
> Maybe they should run with the mauve db?
>
With scissors!
jg
-- _at_home.com is bogus. http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/feb/02/1m2ferry22928-robert-g-ferry-air-force-veteran-was/?uniontribReceived on Tue Feb 17 2009 - 15:57:13 CST