RE: Timesten Vs. Oracle

From: John Hallas <john.hallas_at_hcresources.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 10:18:00 -0000
Message-ID: <MCBBKANEJCHPBLJNAGGOGENNCHAA.john.hallas@hcresources.co.uk>

Justin Cave wrote

If you have a small, read-only or read-mostly database where you can afford to lose updates, an in-memory database is probably ideal. Otherwise, stick with the traditional database.

TimesTen is supposed to guarantee no loss of data under certain configurations. However that is balanced by the requirement to have 2 copies running and the probability of having to load a backup copy and then apply the journal. From what I have seen TT is very memory and CPU intensive. It is used to hold mostly reference data so it is read-mostly in our environment. A small read-only Oracle database that is well optimised, on fast disk and with plenty of memory/cache available should be able to perform pretty well anyway.

John

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.634 / Virus Database: 406 - Release Date: 18/03/04

Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com

To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request_at_freelists.org put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.

--
Archives are at http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html


-----------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Fri Mar 26 2004 - 04:13:26 CST

RE: Timesten Vs. Oracle - Performance