Re: Has anyone developed applications with DB's over 100GB?

I am familiar with Rdb, and I'll bet the advantage is that you can tune the indexes -- tell the database how deep and how wide to search on things, and divide the index into sections based on key range (e.g. numbers 1-1000 in one space, 1001 to 2000 in another, remainder in a third). And the backups are EASY -- just a simple backup command (with an "incremental" version) and FAST. Also the archivelog [in Rdb terms, the "after image journal"] is one file. And you can repair datafiles from the backup ONLINE. Perhaps you can tell, I really miss Rdb! (and I think that Oracle was advertising it for large databases like the satellite company example mentioned in Joel Garry's response to you)

Joel Garry <joelga_at_pebble.ml.org> wrote in article <69lm56$de$1_at_pebble.ml.org>...
> In article <69k3j2$feq_at_camel15.mindspring.com>,
> Marc Jacobson <sorry_at_noemail.com> wrote:
> >I have never heard of a database so enormous. But I would think the
 only
> >common database that might be capable would be DB2.
> >
> >Eric Margheim wrote in message <34bd383f.0_at_news.socket.net>...
> >>We are about to start development of an application that will
 potentially
> >>have a database size of over 100GB. We are trying to decide what
 platform,
> >>O/S, and database to use.
>
> There was a case-study talk on this at Oracle Open World. Satellite
> TV subscription service uses Rdb on alphas. Very interesting stuff, I'm
> sure it's on the CD of presentation papers (which I no longer have access
 to).
>
Received on Fri Jan 16 1998 - 00:00:00 CST