Re: Lock-free databases

From: FrankHamersley <>
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 13:01:32 GMT
Message-ID: <Mqmcf.13048$>

VC wrote:
> "Joe Seigh" <> wrote in message
>>VC wrote:

>>>"ANTs 3.2 is also the only lock-free relational database management 
>>>system architected for popular 64-bit Linux operating system 
>>>implementations running on AMD Opteron and Intel Xeon platforms. The ANTs 
>>>Data Server sets a new precedent in the database industry, allowing large 
>>>OLTP, real-time analytical processing and enterprise reporting to run 
>>>concurrently in the same server. "
>>Saying you're lock free isn't the same as being lock-free.

> You may have a point, or you may not. You just don't know whether their
> lock-free implentation helps the performance. They claim it does:
> "The second interesting thing about ADS is that ANTs claims that it
> typically runs 5 to 15 times faster than standard relational databases. The
> fact that it offers a lock-free environment is one reason for this" (
> )
> So why not give them the benefit of the doubt ? Did you run tests that
> would indicate their claims are false ?
In my reading of their own material it is not "lock-free" at all. That said I can accept on a first reading alone that the "right" applications will perform better if those techniques are leveraged.
>>their bottlenecks are IPC related, I don't see how their lock-free
>>patented techniques would help performance.

My (theoretical) concern is that once an app starts down the slippery slope of concurrency problems, the gains from the smarts embedded in ANTs may be white-ant'ed (sic) away by a tangled web of application adjustments to provide certainties. Of course the talent question is prolly a much bigger factor regardless of which tech is used.

Cheers, Frank. Received on Wed Nov 09 2005 - 14:01:32 CET

Original text of this message