[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: regarding backsql performance
You brought the discussion on this ground. As soon as you manage to
"google out" something real, I mean: something so "superficial" that has
full LDAP semantics and that people can use to look up directories and
authenticate with better performances, please let us know.
p.
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
>> ---------------------------------------
>>
>>
>
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
---------------------------------------