> load+query (a.k.a., "warehouse") operations it can be faster than > Oracle because it doesn't get tangled up with rollbacks, etc.
Hmmm... We did some load testing here (with Perl::DBI) and MySQL was very fast with just a few concurrent users but as soon as we cranked up the number of concurrent users MySQL bogged down but Oracle kept going. For read consistency I think MySQL is actually putting locks on tables during a query and when you have some intense queries with a lot of concurrent users they have to wait in line like 1000 rowdy kindergardeners. Steve Orr -----Original Message----- Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 1:32 PM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L -- "Weaver, Walt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I don't think you're wrong. MySQL gets dissed frequently on this list, but > it's really a nice little product. IMHO it's much closer to Oracle than > Access. > > It works well for us. Doesn't scale like Oracle, but works well. In some ways it scales better than Oracle. For load+query (a.k.a., "warehouse") operations it can be faster than Oracle because it doesn't get tangled up with rollbacks, etc. On systms with many "instances" it also can be much simpler to administer. -- Steven Lembark 2930 W. Palmer Workhorse Computing Chicago, IL 60647 -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com -- Author: Orr, Steve INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fat City Network Services -- (858) 538-5051 FAX: (858) 538-5051 San Diego, California -- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists -------------------------------------------------------------------- To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
