Re: The TransRelational Model: Performance Concerns
From: Jan Hidders <jan.hidders_at_REMOVETHIS.pandora.be>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 21:29:29 GMT
Message-ID: <Zc9md.24628$jf4.1240181_at_phobos.telenet-ops.be>
>
> Main memory database or main memory DBMS?
>
> Agreed, but the TRM is more general and flexible (the traditional
> approach is also one of the options), and might perform very well with
> a broader range of cases.
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 21:29:29 GMT
Message-ID: <Zc9md.24628$jf4.1240181_at_phobos.telenet-ops.be>
Alfredo Novoa wrote:
> 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?
Yes.
> 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.
All very true, and also very irrelevant.
>>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. [...]
>
> 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.
Interesting claim. Would you care to support it with some form of argumentation or examples that prove it, or will we just have to take your word for it?
- Jan Hidders