We would like to add one thing to this.
Different application situations seem to require different approaches. While
RDBMS seem to support say 80% of these situations there are some situations
where we find it not good enough.
We have developed an adserver which has exactly the kind of scenario that
Sander has talked about. Lots of similar queries which are read-only....
data having to be distributed across servers and so on.... RDBMSes (in our
experience) don't seem suited for this.
Murali
Differentiated Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
176, Ground Floor, 6th Main,
2nd Block, RT Nagar
Bangalore - 560032
Phone : 91 80 3431470
www.diffs-india.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Sander van Zoest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Matt Sergeant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Differentiated Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 2:35 AM
Subject: Re: Fast DB access
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, Matt Sergeant wrote:
>
> > > I really think that sometimes going for a flat file layout *can* be
much
> > > more reliable and scalable then RDBMS software. It all really depends
on
> > > what you plan to do with the data and what you would like to get out
of
> > > it.
> > I think you chose the wrong words there. I think a flat file layout can
be
> > more performant than an RDBMS, but I don't think its going to be
> > more reliable or scalable than an RDBMS. There are far too many locking
> > issues and transaction issues necessary for the terms "reliable and
> > scalable", unless you're willing to spend a few years re-coding Oracle
:-)
>
> I actually think that there are times that can be all three. Notice how
> I said there are times it can be all three, it definately isn't the case
> all the time. Neither are RDBMS. ;-)
>
> Lots of places use databases for read-only queries. Having a database
> that gets lots of similar queries that are read-only makes it an
> unnecessary single point of failure. Why not use the local disk and
> use rsync to replicate the data around. This way if a machine goes down,
> the others still have a full copy of the content and keep on running.
>
> If you have a lot of data that you need to keep in sync and needs constant
> updating with a random amount of different queries then you get some real
> use out of a RDBMS.
>
> I guess I am just saying that there are a gazillions of ways of doing
things,
> and each tool has something it is good at. File systems are really good
> at serving up read-only content. So why re-invent the wheel? It all really
> depends on what content you are dealing with and how you expect to query
> it and use it.
>
> There is a reason that table optimisation and tuning databases is such
> a sought after skill. Most of these things require different things that
> all rely on the type of content and their use. These things need to be
> taken in consideration on a case by case basis.
>
> You can do things terribly using Oracle and you can do things well using
> Oracle. The same can be said about just about everything. ;-)
>
>
> --
> Sander van Zoest
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Covalent Technologies, Inc.
http://www.covalent.net/
> (415) 536-5218
http://www.vanzoest.com/sander/
>
