> Message: 9 > From: Deds Castillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 10:50:21 +0800 > Subject: [plug] Postgresql scalability > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Of particular interest to Mikol. =) > > Fresh from the oven. > http://www.icann.org/tlds/org/questions-to-applicants-13.htm#Response13TheIn ternetSocietyISOC
One of the proposal submitters in the icann link above submitted the ff. statement: >>> "There are no RDBMS systems that scale to a greater number >>> of records, or to a larger total data size than Oracle." Hmmmm... so why is Walmart's supercomputer-hosted multi-terabyte 'data warehouse' not running Oracle? From: http://eveander.com/arsdigita/asj/data-warehousing >>> "Errr, actually, Wal*Mart has a datawarehouse to track all of >>> the sales in all of its stores. And it doesn't run on Sybase, >>> or Oracle or DB2. It isn't kept on a mainframe. It runs on NCR's >>> Teradata database. And it is really a mind bogglingly large >>> installation. I worked with it back in the early nineties when >>> it kept stuff on an item by store by week basis (the days were kept >>> as columns in the weekly row). At that time they had something >>> on the order of four billion rows online for 18 months of data >>> in 4 terabytes. Last I heard (3 years ago) they had 24 terabytes." While we're on the subject of multi-TB databases, here's a very interesting article on the 100TB Wayback Machine's architecture. http://www.oreillynet.com/lpt/a/webservices/2002/01/18/brewster.html ====================================================== The "New Architect" (formerly Web Techniques) article pointed to in the icann link: http://www.newarchitectmag.com/archives/2001/01/lilly/ mentions certain alleged disadvantages of Interbase, but I'm not sure how accurate those are considering that Firebird may have fixed certain problems of Interbase and the author's other statements, this time about MySQL, saying "It's a basic, stripped-down database that quickly serves up data to *limited numbers of users*" does not ring very true. Helen Borrie, one of the primary developers of Firebird (I think) has this to say about the Interbase comments in the article: > As I recall, this came from an article written by a > guy (Patrick-someone?) who had been commissioned by > PG to compare PG (or was it MySQL?) with a few > other selected RDBMSs. It's old (about 2 years) and > the author never did explain what this statement was > meant to mean: > > "Because InterBase uses a nonshared architecture, as > user numbers increase, it must parcel data into ever-smaller > partitions, diminishing its performance levels. " > > Many asked him what was "a nonshared architecture" and > where he got the idea that adding users (or queries) caused > some kind of repackaging of data packets. (It doesn't. > IB's data packets are always the same size..) At the time > it was foo-bar and nothing has changed... > > To date, no proper comparative evaluation has been published re IB or > Firebird vs other databases. One appeared where a whole bunch of RDBMSs > had been set up in sub-optimal configurations to compare single-user > performance with MySQL in its most optimal setup. At the time, the test > used the flaky IB 6 binary that Borl released in July 2000 with an old IB 5 > ODBC driver. As I recall, it did quite well (even if Saddam Hussein did > win the election!) If Helen's statements are correct, then Ned Lilly, the New Architect author, is being very irresponsible, rehashing statements without understanding what they mean. ====================================================== http://www.software602.cz/produkty/winbase/comparison.htm is a nice little comparison of MySQL, PostgreSQL, Interbase 6.5, and a Czech-made RDBMS. _ Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fully Searchable Archives With Friendly Web Interface at http://marc.free.net.ph To subscribe to the Linux Newbies' List: send "subscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
