On Wed, 06 Oct 1999, Perrin Harkins wrote:
> Matt Sergeant wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 05 Oct 1999, Frank Livaudais wrote:
> > > > Check out slashdot: <URL: http://slashdot.org> which serves up about half a
> > > > million hits a day (all dynamic) from a single dual xeon box running
> > > > mod_perl.
> > >
> > > What database is this running? Does anyone know? We are looking to run Oracle
>8i
> > > on a Sun box with Solaris. Our biggest hit has been on the database side. I
> > > think our mod perl side can take it, but are there special ways we could
>configure
> > > it to interact better with a database server, etc?
> >
> > It's running MySQL, and Oracle is your problem. The trouble is it's just
> > too damn slow (no flame wars please, unless you've run side by side
> > comparisons to prove me wrong with 8i - my tests were on Oracle 7). Either
> > switch to Sybase (significantly faster while still offering all the
> > features of Oracle) or realise that you don't need all those features and
> > switch to MySQL. (MySQL doesn't have views, triggers, transactions and a
> > bunch of other important features that Oracle provides).
>
> Oracle could never be as fast as MySQL at returning a bunch of data from
> a simple query. The additional features will slow it down. However,
> I've seen it come close with good DBAs and good hardware, and even pass
> MySQL on more complex queries where its strengths come into play. It
> should be able to compete favorably with Sybase in this department, if
> properly tuned and cared for, but I've never used Sybase so I can't
> speak from experience. The main thing it has over MySQL is better
> concurrency support. MySQL will start to give you locking problems if
> you get a bunch of users doing queries that don't finish immediately and
> then need to update data. Oracle handles this very well with row-level
> locking and a multi-versioning feature that no other commercial database
> currently has.
I'm assuming this is with Oracle 8 (I did a direct evaluation against
Sybase with Oracle 7.3). My experience even with Oracle 8 however has been
"dog slow" - and every time has been tuned by Oracle paid consultants. And
the more complex the query gets the slower I've seen Oracle get. It's not
just my opinion either - I've heard this from lots of other people.
> For a description of some of the things that make Oracle different from
> MySQL, read Phillip Greenspun's latest on the subject at
> http://www.linuxworld.com/linuxworld/lw-1999-09/lw-09-aolserver_3.html.
> He's kind of harsh on MySQL, but he does point out the choices you're
> making by going with one or the other. Personally, I think both have
> their place and your application needs and environment (as well as how
> many millions you have to give to Oracle) will determine which one you
> should use.
Sadly Phillip Greenspun, while a great writer, isn't that fabulous
technically (although he's on the right track by not recommending NT). See
how he also recommends HP-UX as the fastest and most stable Unix around.
(NB: I get an awful lot of work on Oracle systems, so I'm not saying that
I'd never use it - just that it's always been slower than anything else
I've ever used - and I've used Oracle on some very large iron).
--
<Matt/>
Details: FastNet Software Ltd - XML, Perl, Databases.
Tagline: High Performance Web Solutions
Web Sites: http://come.to/fastnet http://sergeant.org
Available for Consultancy, Contracts and Training.
