Re: In Memory Databases Vs. Oracle

Hello wrote:
>
> I would like to solicit opinions and experiences people have with the
> new "In Memory" Databases versus
> the standard RDBM such as Oracle.
> One example of an in-memory database is Times Ten.
> We are an Oracle shop and have Engineers evaluating Times Ten for an
> upcoming project, and I would like to know if anyone has experience
> or has benchmarked/tested the two together. Looking at their Web Site,
> I have some doubts as to whether they are worth the
> added time and learning curve to deploy.
> In particular, it appears that the greatest benefit (obviously) comes
> from basic selecting of the data, and
> the performance gain with inserts and updates isn't really THAT
> spectacular. Additionally, for recovery purposes, they appear to
> archive data to disk (like the redo logs pushing data to archive logs),
> and I wonder if their performance stats take this into consideration.
>
> Thanks in advance for any experiences or opinions.

        If your system has sufficient memory and your SGA is large enough Oracle will load everything into memory and behave as though it were an in memory database with one significant difference -- Oracle will write changes back to disk as they occur. As a result Oracle may be slightly slower than an in memory database, but on the other hand -- you won't lose any data in the event of a power failure or catastrophe.

hth
--
Jerry Gitomer
Once I learned how to spell DBA, I became one. Received on Tue Feb 01 2000 - 23:26:07 CST