Re: RDBMS Server Performance Expectations

John Hamer wrote:

> 1. The server RAM required during a SQL transaction appears to be one
> to two times the total size of modified records, i.e. updating
> 1,000 1kB records increases the SQL server's RAM allocation by
> about 2MB. This can lead to server crashing, e.g. "update TBL set
> NUM = 0;" can fail on a server with 96MB of RAM with a table size
> of several tens of thousands of records:
> a) do such broad updates work in general? If not, then how do people
> do such things as adding 10% to every stock item price?
> b) do RDBMS generally eat RAM this fast in transactions?

Hard to believe such a limitation ! Totally unacceptable !!! Raima ? I not quite believe such a commercial product will have such a totally unreasonable limitation.

I think you can regard that as a system bug or improper setup. Just call in the support. Received on Wed Apr 09 1997 - 00:00:00 CDT