[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: regarding backsql performance

(top-posting as seems to be the style of this thread)

If your context was that back-sql would be faster than back-passwd or
back-ldif on a large dataset, I think you are right.  Fortunately, bdb
can rush into memory and go really fast.  Or even if your database is
larger than your memory (as in my case) it can "index" into memory and
go pretty fast.  This can probably be achieved with an rdbms, but
would require a lot of tuning and work on the part of the dba.  Good
luck trying to get there.  :)


On 6/22/07, gonzales@linuxlouis.net <gonzales@linuxlouis.net> wrote: 
No kidding!  Embedded database systems - 'local' files only with no other
overhead of course, from the superficial standpoint will 'out perform'
another DBMS that is being used in a client/server mode.  These are
obvious facts.  Once the SQL engine receives the data in an RDBMS vs. the
embedded database format, then you can start comparing apples to apples.

Based on what I said initially, looks like there are many liberties being
taken to what was implied.  Of course I was thinking that we would all be
agreeing on the context, which didn't happen; that said, I would like to
state clearer, that when in a client/server model naturally there are
going to be greater overhead in process boundaries and naming contexts
that will not be able to compete with an embedded database.  They each
have their own market of applicability.  For contexts sake from the moment
of 'true' processing SQL engine - once the RDBMS system has received it's
data - vs. local embedded DBMS, this brings the context and comparison
much closer.  I too can go out and google benchmarks, but if you want to
impress me with truth and facts, let me know how we can bencharmk engine
vs. engine, not a Hummer running down the road at 85mph with air
resistance for mpg, vs. an engine sitting on a concete block running for
same mpg performance... c'mon.


On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Pierangelo Masarati wrote:

> gonzales@linuxlouis.net wrote:
>> That's funny that you would ask that, seeing as how the initial
>> statements had no such quantification either... did I make my point?
>
> For a general discussion of why it is unlikely that an RDBMS based
> database can possibly outperform an embedded database, see
> <http://www.openldap.org/faq/data/cache/378.html>.
>
> For real numbers, and comparisons with other products, see, for example
> <http://www.symas.com/benchmark.shtml> and
> <http://www.openldap.org/lists/openldap-software/200705/msg00014.html>.
>
> Obviously, you can object, there's no comparison with any Directory
> Server based on an RDBMS data store.
>
> p.
>
>
>
> Ing. Pierangelo Masarati
> OpenLDAP Core Team
>
> SysNet s.r.l.
> via Dossi, 8 - 27100 Pavia - ITALIA
> http://www.sys-net.it
> ---------------------------------------
> Office:  +39 02 23998309
> Mobile:  +39 333 4963172
> Email:   pierangelo.masarati@sys-net.it
> ---------------------------------------
>
>

--
Louis Gonzales
louis.gonzales@linuxlouis.net
http://www.linuxlouis.net