Re: 9i server performance, 5 million hits per second?

Nuno Souto wrote:

> hehehe! Some of us call those simply "tables in memory", as opposed
> to databases...
> IOW, they are not databases in any real sense of the term other than
> some nebulous marketing definition. Wouldn't waste anytime with them.
>
> >
> >They report >10.000 transactions on a 140 SpecInt 92 computer
>
> that means indeed they are not doing any I/O whatsoever: simple memory
> lookup. You don't need a "database" to do that: a simple 3GL compiler
> in a reasonable language such as C or Pascal will do the same. And a
> LOT cheaper

It is correct that the feature set is small in comparison to an Oracle RDBMS.
But you cannot compare such an DB to "tables in memory" or an 3GL implementation (and they are real databases in the sense of a definition of an RDBMS).
You would not have transactions, ANSI SQL, relational DB model and several other features with "tables" or a C/Pascal/whatever.

It is too correct that there are just memory lookups via a B-tree or T-tree. But whats wrong with that?

A lot cheaper depends. There are open source implementations available if you do not need the commercial support.

The question was "5 million hits per second". That is some powers above that what an RDBMS can deliver today.
I thought that it could interests some here (as the question was surely not for an real system) that there are applications with very high transaction requirements (not 5e6 though), even if do not think that these systems will replace the currently available RDBMS systems.

Bye, Stefan... . . . Received on Thu Jan 31 2002 - 20:25:21 CST