Ühel kenal päeval, L, 2007-10-13 kell 17:44, kirjutas Gokulakannan
Somasundaram:
> Hi,
> I went through this article and it was good. Please have a look
> at it.
>
> http://www.databasecolumn.com/2007/09/one-size-fits-all.html
>
> This article was written by Michael Stonebraker, considered to be the
> founder of our database. He has mentioned that the DBMS designed in
> 1970s haven't changed according to the change that has happened in
> Hardware landscape.
What has happened in reality, is that the speed difference between CPU,
RAM and disk speeds has _increased_ tremendously, which makes it even
more important to _decrease_ the size of stored data if you want good
performance
> The Vertica database(Monet is a open source version with the same
> principle) makes use of the very same principle. Use more disk space,
> since they are less costly and optimize the data warehousing.
MonetDB is not about "using more disk to get better performance", but
about reducing the need to read unused data and increasing the speed by
that.
There is also a MonetDB/X100 project, which tries to make MonetOD
order(s) of magnitude faster by doing in-page compression in order to
get even more performance, see:
http://homepages.cwi.nl/~boncz/x100.html
http://www.cwi.nl/themes/ins1/publications/docs/ZuBoNeHe:DEBULL:05.pdf
> Even otherwise we are recommending Indexes with snapshot as an option.
> We are not replacing the current index scheme. So if someone feels
> that his database should run on lesser disk space, let them create the
> normal index. If he feels he can afford to have more redundant disk
> space, then he can create indexes with snapshots. We are reducing
> random I/Os at the cost of extra disk space. So definitely that's a
> good. But tech folks like us can better decide on something based on
> experiments, as Tom has pointed out. So let's see whether Indexes with
> snapshot is worth the trade-off in space.
Agreed.
------------
Hannu
