Re: In Memory Databases Vs. Oracle

Sorry, wrong link...
It's www.timesten.com

Spool wrote:

> www.thinklink.com
>
> Christopher Spence wrote:
>
> > I would think an in memory database would grossly outperform Oracle.
> > But how to do back up? Recover? Fail Safe?
> >
> > If there is only small performance gain, then something isn't right.
> > But I would be REAL sceptical how you can rely on this database to be
> > fail-safe. Not to mention all the years Oracle has refined their
> > database to a science.
> >
> > What's the url?
> >
> > On Tue, 01 Feb 2000 11:10:19 -0800, Hello <Hello_at_yahoo.com> 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.
> > >
> >
> > Christopher Spence
> > Senior MIS Engineer
> > A+ CNA Raptor
Received on Thu Feb 24 2000 - 13:06:10 CST