| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
 |
 | |||
| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
|
| |||
Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> RE: Timesten Vs. Oracle - Performance
It's a bit like comparing the performance of a Formula 1 to the performance of a tank. In-memory databases, in general, will vastly outperform databases that rely on writing to disk, much like the Formula 1 car will vastly outperform traditional databases like Oracle on a smooth track. An in-memory database generally requires that you have enough RAM to hold the entire database and does not have anywhere near the guarantees of durability (the D in ACID) that a traditional database does. Tanks are built to withstand a lot more for a lot longer than a Formula 1 car is.
If you have a small, read-only or read-mostly database where you can afford to lose updates, an in-memory database is probably ideal. Otherwise, stick with the traditional database.
Justin Cave
Distributed Database Consulting, Inc.
http://www.ddbcinc.com/askDDBC
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org [mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] On Behalf Of VIVEK_SHARMA
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 11:05 PM
To: oracle-l_at_freelists.org; LazyDBA.com Discussion
Subject: Timesten Vs. Oracle - Performance
How does timesten compare with Oracle Database in performance, availability etc?
Timesten in-memory Database - a brief :-
The database system needs an inexpensive, plentiful memory, and the dramatic increases in processor speeds relative to the modest increases in disk drive performance.TimesTen produces software that brings real-time database performance to applications. With TimesTen In-Memory Database Technology,throughput is measured in tens of thousands of operations per second, and response times are counted in microseconds. Though internally unique, TimesTen's products are accessed through standards-based interfaces, and designed for easy integration into existing software infrastructures.
 |
 |