On 4. Dec. 2009, at 17:46 , Mike Schrag wrote: > That's what I'm referring ... I have not used it, only read about it enough > to be intrigued by it. It requires your entire database to be loaded into > memory, but memory is pretty damn cheap. If you have a truly HUGE database, > this is not an option, but most of ours are not larger than the reasonable > max amount of memory.
Personally I have only fairly small databases - big tables being in the couple hundred thousand rows range. Professionally, it's a different thing. Big table in the couple billion rows tables. > Oracle's a weird cat ... On the one hand, it his this weird pile of ancient > restrictions (31 char column name limits, etc). On the other hand, it's > insanely fast. I don't have real scientific comparisons to back this up, but > anecdotally, it's fast as hell. Yeah, it's really weird. When I used it, I found it pretty cumbersome. Which might have to do with the fact that with the license cost, normally a DBA comes within the box ... so they don't really care about making it usable for mere mortals. cug -- http://www.event-s.net _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
