RE: Timesten Vs. Oracle - Performance
- To: <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,"LazyDBA.com Discussion" <oracledba@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 17:24:56 +0530
Folks
We are working for a proposal where realtime stock tick data from
reuters etc. needs to be streamed into a db and queries to happen on
them on realtime basis. the input stream is likely to be around
2000-3000 ticks per second (around 1gb per hr) and the querying will be
around 20 mb per hr. The soln is also expected to support failover, high
availability etc.
Selection of a Suitable Database is the Question.
Seek your advise
Thanks
-----Original Message-----
From: John Hallas [mailto:john.hallas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 3:48 PM
To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Timesten Vs. Oracle - Performance
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
-----Original Message-----
From: Cary Millsap [mailto:cary.millsap@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 12:19 PM
To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Timesten Vs. Oracle - Performance
I marvel at the in-memory database vendors' messages, because many of
the performance-challenged user actions I see on Oracle databases ARE
operating entirely in memory. The reason they're slow is that they
perform too many accesses upon the buffer cache. This stuff about TB of
Oracle buffer cache making "Oracle tuning a thing of the past" is
absolute rubbish. See "Why you should focus on LIOs instead of PIOs" at
www.hotsos.com/e-library for details.
I don't see how the in-memory guys could be doing any better than a
reasonably well-optimized Oracle system, unless they're bypassing all
the "horrible serialization operations" that an Oracle instance
executes. Thing is, without those serialization operations, a system
can't provide, for example, read consistency or recoverability.
One aspect of the F1 vs Tank analogy that I really like is that a
Formula 1 car is a single-user automobile. I think an analogy I like
better is F1 vs B-747. It probably works on a lot of different levels:
multi-user-ness, procurement and operational maintenance cost, storage
capacity, range, ... :)
Cary Millsap
Hotsos Enterprises, Ltd.
http://www.hotsos.com
* Nullius in verba *
Upcoming events:
- Performance Diagnosis 101: 4/6 Seattle, 5/7 Dallas, 5/18 New Jersey
- SQL Optimization 101: 3/29 Dallas, 4/19 Denver, 5/3 Boston, 5/24 San
Diego
- Hotsos Symposium 2005: March 6-10 Dallas
- Visit www.hotsos.com for schedule details...
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
--
Archives are at //www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at //www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Other related posts:
