[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: regarding backsql performance
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:
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
For real numbers, and comparisons with other products, see, for example
Obviously, you can object, there's no comparison with any Directory
Server based on an RDBMS data store.
Ing. Pierangelo Masarati
OpenLDAP Core Team
via Dossi, 8 - 27100 Pavia - ITALIA
Office: +39 02 23998309
Mobile: +39 333 4963172