Re: table types

I've got experience with a number of RDBMS, and wouldn't put MySQL as a trustworthy database. Oracle is pretty fast, but it is very expensive to maintain. Sybase ASA is a very fast and very simple database to work with. It is intended to be embedded, so very little DBA intervention is required. Also, compared with Oracle, ASA is very much more standards based (ANSI standard, I mean).
Another database to consider is DB2. It is expensive to purchase, but is very fast and very flexible.
SQL Server is a database, I guess, but I don't like being locked into an OS platform.

-- 
Mike Nicewarner [TeamSybase]
http://www.datamodel.org
mike_at_nospam!datamodel.org
Sybase product enhancement requests:
http://www.isug.com/cgi-bin/ISUG2/submit_enhancement

"Marshall Spight" <mspight_at_dnai.com> wrote in message
news:6uQLc.141450$%_6.57745_at_attbi_s01...


> "Leandro Guimaraens Faria Corsetti Dutra" <leandro_at_dutra.fastmail.fm>


wrote in message


> news:pan.2004.07.22.12.20.13.373768_at_dutra.fastmail.fm...

> > Em Wed, 21 Jul 2004 16:53:04 +0000, Marshall Spight escreveu:


> >

> > > From the benchmarks I've seen over the years, it seems

> > > like the two most "generally fast" dbms are Oracle and

> > > MySQL

> >

> > Your benchmarks are seriously defective.

>

> I was speaking of dbmss that actually exist, and specific

> implementation techniques.

>

> For your statement to be meaningful, you have to show that

> there exist noticably faster alternatives. Note that saying that

> there might one day be faster alternatives is not relevant to my

> statement, because I am discussing current implementations.

> It is quite difficult to run benchmarks against software that

> hasn't been written yet.

>

> So, to stay on the original topic, please provide me a citation

> to the dbms you reference that is so much faster than Oracle,

> and let's discuss its data structures, and how they compare

> with bag-of-structs and inverted index.

>

>

> Marshall

>

>