| 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
Folks
We are working for a proposal where realtime stock tick data from reuters etc. needs to be streamed into a db and queries to happen on them on realtime basis. the input stream is likely to be around 2000-3000 ticks per second (around 1gb per hr) and the querying will be around 20 mb per hr. The soln is also expected to support failover, high availability etc.
Selection of a Suitable Database is the Question.
Seek your advise
Thanks
-----Original Message-----
From: John Hallas [mailto:john.hallas_at_hcresources.co.uk]
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 3:48 PM
To: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
Subject: RE: Timesten Vs. Oracle - Performance
Justin Cave wrote
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.
TimesTen is supposed to guarantee no loss of data under certain
configurations. However that is balanced by the requirement to have 2
copies
running and the probability of having to load a backup copy and then
apply
the journal. From what I have seen TT is very memory and CPU intensive.
It
is used to hold mostly reference data so it is read-mostly in our
environment. A small read-only Oracle database that is well optimised,
on
fast disk and with plenty of memory/cache available should be able to
perform pretty well anyway.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Cary Millsap [mailto:cary.millsap_at_hotsos.com]
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 12:19 PM
To: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
Subject: RE: Timesten Vs. Oracle - Performance
I marvel at the in-memory database vendors' messages, because many of the performance-challenged user actions I see on Oracle databases ARE operating entirely in memory. The reason they're slow is that they perform too many accesses upon the buffer cache. This stuff about TB of Oracle buffer cache making "Oracle tuning a thing of the past" is absolute rubbish. See "Why you should focus on LIOs instead of PIOs" at www.hotsos.com/e-library for details.
I don't see how the in-memory guys could be doing any better than a reasonably well-optimized Oracle system, unless they're bypassing all the "horrible serialization operations" that an Oracle instance executes. Thing is, without those serialization operations, a system can't provide, for example, read consistency or recoverability.
One aspect of the F1 vs Tank analogy that I really like is that a Formula 1 car is a single-user automobile. I think an analogy I like better is F1 vs B-747. It probably works on a lot of different levels: multi-user-ness, procurement and operational maintenance cost, storage capacity, range, ... :)
Cary Millsap
Hotsos Enterprises, Ltd.
http://www.hotsos.com
* Nullius in verba *
Upcoming events:
- Performance Diagnosis 101: 4/6 Seattle, 5/7 Dallas, 5/18 New Jersey
- SQL Optimization 101: 3/29 Dallas, 4/19 Denver, 5/3 Boston, 5/24 San
Diego
- Hotsos Symposium 2005: March 6-10 Dallas
- Visit www.hotsos.com for schedule details...
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org]
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 12:36 AM
To: oracle-l_at_freelists.org; LazyDBA.com Discussion
Subject: 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.
FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.htmlput 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request_at_freelists.org
 |
 |