On Wednesday 02 Mar 2005 23:59, you wrote: > Gavin Henry wrote: > >Dear all, > > > >If you have a friend who is a highly skilled Oracle DBA with 20+ years > >experience, how do you convince them that bdb is a better backend choice > > than back-sql? > > > >My argument was that bdb is extremely optimised for high read access. > > There's a much simpler argument. BerkeleyDB is inherently more efficient > than any SQL database because it is a lower-level piece of code. The > fact that MySQL is implemented on top of BerkeleyDB illustrates this > clearly. Why go through all of the intermediate layers that MySQL > comprises to get to the DB, when we can use BDB directly... > > Nobody uses back-sql for performance, they use it because they have a > bunch of data already existing in an RDBMS and it is politically > infeasible to migrate to something else, i.e., they have no choice. When > you have the freedom to choose the best solution, you go with back-bdb. > > -- Howard Chu > Chief Architect, Symas Corp. Director, Highland Sun > http://www.symas.com http://highlandsun.com/hyc > Symas: Premier OpenSource Development and Support Thank you Howard, I knew you would answer ;-) -- Kind Regards, Gavin Henry. Managing Director. T +44 (0) 1224 279484 M +44 (0) 7930 323266 F +44 (0) 1224 742001 E ghenry@suretecsystems.com Open Source. Open Solutions(tm). http://www.suretecsystems.com/
Attachment:
pgp5PejXtKLmf.pgp
Description: PGP signature