I think OrientDB shines where JOINs are needed in RDBMS. Especially, JOINs are very expensive for bigs tables.
Not surprised if it may slow in some simple queries. On Tuesday, 4 August 2015 15:27:04 UTC+1, Ivan Šturlić wrote: > > Thanks Savio for help. > Difference between yours and my result is probably beacuse of hardware. > I'm trying on my laptop which is slower than your machine. > But I can see that this is extremly bad performance because I tried > similar in MS SQL 2008 database on the same laptop. > I loaded those 130.000 x 96 records (I could only insert them all as rows > so I got more than 12 million rows). > > Equivalent query with TOP 1000 limit executed in* 50 ms* and query > without limit which returned 30.000 rows executed in *500 ms.* > And all that *without* date index! > Also, there were no problems with memory overflow like in OrientDB. > Actually, SQL Server memory usage stays below 600 MB with total of 12 > databases some of which are larger than this one. > > Also, HASH index is not good because I also need range queries. > > Regards, Ivan. > -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OrientDB" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
