Re: TimesTen and In Memory Databases.....
From: Michael Austin <maustin_at_firstdbasource.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 18:59:55 -0600
Message-ID: <oIjsl.15107$as4.10113_at_nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com>
jgar the jorrible wrote:
>> All,
>> I have been assigned to evaluate the TimesTen in memory database
>> software.
>> Please note I am not a DBA but I do have quite a bit of systems
>> knowledge.
>>
>> From what I have seen I have not been that impressed based on the
>> price point and some of the issues I have read about.
>>
>> Such as
>>
>> 1. You can easily get resource contention (CPU, memory, I/O) between
>> oracle and TimesTen. This can hurt TimesTen performance (and Oracle
>> performance). So we can get around alot of this by putting the
>> TimesTen Databases on another Box. This is not a big issue in our case
>> as we are in a Grid configuration situation but still its additional
>> cost.
>>
>> 2.The TimesTen should run on the same machine as the application and
>> be accessed using direct mode not client/server to maximise
>> performance. This could be a problem but not in our case. This fact
>> could force some upgrades to existing machinery in our case and the
>> additional cost is a factor.
>>
>> I am more worried about issues with data table sizes. We have very
>> large data tables. We are talking many millions of rows and hundreds
>> of columns is very typical in a few of our temporary tables.
>>
>> Anyone had experience using Times Ten with very large Data Tables?
>>
>> 3. Users must optimize the Times Ten Database besides the Oracle
>> Database.
>> Most likely not a problem but still a learning curve.
>>
>> 4. No Procedure on the TimesTen Database at this point (release). This
>> is a major issue, in my opinion, is there ways around this?
>>
>> What can I expect for speed improvements, 5X , 10X, 100X with Times
>> Ten?
>>
>> I understand the advantage of moving things into memory and avoiding
>> some of the I/O issues. Would I be better off adding an additional
>> processor or another rack then more memory instead of adding the
>> complexity of another piece of Software and machinery. Or even the
>> possibility of a data warehouse and update tables on X amount of
>> time.
>>
>> Opinions are welcome.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Chris
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 18:59:55 -0600
Message-ID: <oIjsl.15107$as4.10113_at_nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com>
jgar the jorrible wrote:
> On Mar 5, 2:36 pm, Solomon_Man <cmgra..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> All,
>> I have been assigned to evaluate the TimesTen in memory database
>> software.
>> Please note I am not a DBA but I do have quite a bit of systems
>> knowledge.
>>
>> From what I have seen I have not been that impressed based on the
>> price point and some of the issues I have read about.
>>
>> Such as
>>
>> 1. You can easily get resource contention (CPU, memory, I/O) between
>> oracle and TimesTen. This can hurt TimesTen performance (and Oracle
>> performance). So we can get around alot of this by putting the
>> TimesTen Databases on another Box. This is not a big issue in our case
>> as we are in a Grid configuration situation but still its additional
>> cost.
>>
>> 2.The TimesTen should run on the same machine as the application and
>> be accessed using direct mode not client/server to maximise
>> performance. This could be a problem but not in our case. This fact
>> could force some upgrades to existing machinery in our case and the
>> additional cost is a factor.
>>
>> I am more worried about issues with data table sizes. We have very
>> large data tables. We are talking many millions of rows and hundreds
>> of columns is very typical in a few of our temporary tables.
>>
>> Anyone had experience using Times Ten with very large Data Tables?
>>
>> 3. Users must optimize the Times Ten Database besides the Oracle
>> Database.
>> Most likely not a problem but still a learning curve.
>>
>> 4. No Procedure on the TimesTen Database at this point (release). This
>> is a major issue, in my opinion, is there ways around this?
>>
>> What can I expect for speed improvements, 5X , 10X, 100X with Times
>> Ten?
>>
>> I understand the advantage of moving things into memory and avoiding
>> some of the I/O issues. Would I be better off adding an additional
>> processor or another rack then more memory instead of adding the
>> complexity of another piece of Software and machinery. Or even the
>> possibility of a data warehouse and update tables on X amount of
>> time.
>>
>> Opinions are welcome.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Chris
> > I also have no experience with it, but if you have bigness, you > perhaps want to compare with http://mikerault.blogspot.com/2009/02/do-you-need-solid-state-technology.html > > The times ten docs (Oracle TimesTen In-Memory Database Operations > Guide) says "Configure your system so that the entire data store fits > in main memory. The use of virtual memory substantially decreases > performance. You will know that the > data store (or working set) does not fit if a performance monitoring > tool shows excessive paging or virtual memory activity. > You may have to add physical memory or configure the system software > to allow a large amount of shared memory to be allocated to your > process(es). TimesTen includes the ttSize utility to help you estimate > the size of your data store." > > jg > -- > _at_home.com is bogus. > http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/mar/06/1n6craigs003526-lawsuit-accuses-craigslist-promoti/?uniontrib
I suppose my multi-hundredTB db is out of the question for x10? :) Received on Fri Mar 06 2009 - 18:59:55 CST