Re: Timesten Vs. Oracle - Performance
- From: "Nuno Souto" <dbvision@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 23:06:43 +1100
----- Original Message -----
From: "Anjo Kolk" <anjo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> MySQL, I am not kidding
Hehehe! You're not wrong...
> 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.
If you have a small, read-only or read-mostly(WTF???) database where you
can afford to lose updates, you have rocks in your head if you use
a database!
The proper structure was invented over 50 years ago and it's called an
array. OK, let's forward the clock a few years and call it a stack.
A database? You gotta be joking...
> TimesTen is supposed to guarantee no loss of data under certain
> configurations.
I hate these open "certain configurations" statements.
Always reminds me of "if I had two heads I could eat twice as fast,
think twice as fast and make the same errors twice as fast"...
> 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.
Yaba-dahba-doo! Regular as clockwork: good old mirroring. No clue
whatsoever...
Cheers
Nuno Souto
in sunny Sydney, Australia
dbvision@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
----------------------------------------------------------------
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:
