🚀 go-pugleaf

bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:

>The 3090 still provides fairly awesome I/O for the price...
>...It probably still is a cost-effective database
>transaction machine for very large databases

Barry,

It's folklore in the database world that things are as you say...but
nobody ever seems to have any numbers.  It's my opinion that you're
right, but does anyone have any facts?

It should also be noted that good DBMSs avoid i/o's at very reasonable
(and these days, affordable) costs in computation and memory.  The
basic tools are query optimizing, access methods, cacheing, intelligent
buffering, indices, readahead, data clustering, deferred writes.  The
next generation will add optimizing placement of data on disk (and disk
array, yum yum!).  At that point the bottleneck will be bus throughput,
which I suppose brings us back to dead whales.  Or will Futurebus solve
this?  Actually, I suppose that just brings me back to my first point:
how big is the gap?  Measurement of real operations on very large
databases using currently available DBMS on KM and big iron would be
very interesting indeed.  Might even help free the masses.

-- Jon
-- 
Jonathan Krueger    jkrueger@dtic.dla.mil   uunet!dgis!jkrueger
The Philip Morris Companies, Inc: without question the strongest
and best argument for an anti-flag-waving amendment.