Re: The TransRelational Model: Performance Concerns

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 21:20:18 GMT, Jan Hidders <jan.hidders_at_REMOVETHIS.pandora.be> wrote:

>> But this is not a realistic assumption and he did not study what
>> happens if we have a lot of RAM. [...]
>
>If we assume a lot of RAM then we are essentially talking about a
>main-memory database in which case you should compare it to the usual
>techniques for those types of databases.

Main memory database or main memory DBMS?

Most non main memory DBMS perform a lot better if you have a lot of RAM. It is becoming very frequent to have SQL Server databases that fit in RAM.
> One that springs to my mind is
>the Monet DB from the CWI in Amsterdam where relations are essentially
>split in binary relations between tuple identifiers and attribute
>values. For such relations you can then apply the usual techniques of
>hashing, indexes et cetera. I strongly suspect that the space and time
>complexity will be essentially equivalent with the TRM approach, e.g.,
>single attribute equi-joins are also here extremely fast, but it is much
>less complex and doesn't require fancy allocation algorithms, leaving
>gaps for inserts, nightly reorganizations or whatever.

Agreed, but the TRM is more general and flexible (the traditional approach is also one of the options), and might perform very well with a broader range of cases.

Regards Received on Mon Nov 15 2004 - 13:09:42 CET