4 ms·

http://rethinkdb.com/ http://rethinkdb.com/ just called and they disagree with you. The thing is that architecturally nothing has really changed from 70's. And

http://rethinkdb.com/ http://rethinkdb.com/ just called and they disagree with you. The thing is that architecturally nothing has really changed from 70's. And even if it did, Oracle cannot just go and tweak some "magic numbers" (what would those be?) since the idea of spinning plates at the end of a long and perilous pipeline is at the core of any contemporary DBMS. To change this you cant just assign a junior developer for a week or two to "optimize" for SSD. It is an monumental effort requiring that you throw away and/or revisit every presumption you made in the last 30-40 years that it took to build these DBMS. It is similar to introduction of internal combustion engine to the world of horse and carriage. At first glance, just mount the engine on the carriage and voila! It turns out that carriage was fundamentally changed to accommodate the internal combustion engine. To the degree that besides four wheels, modern ICE powered carriage looks nothing like old horse powered carriage.

batista 15y ago
http://rethinkdb.com/ http://rethinkdb.com/ just called and they disagree with you. Yes. What about the rest 99.999% of the industry? The thing is that architecturally nothing has really changed from 70's. Which is my case exactly. Despite going from KB of main memory to TB, and from a few MB of hard disk to PB, "nothing has changed". What makes you think this case will be different? And even if it did, Oracle cannot just go and tweak some "magic numbers" (what would those be?) since the idea of spinning plates at the end of a long and perilous pipeline is at the core of any contemporary DBMS. I was talking about the OS level, not Oracle's. Tuning virtual memory and related pipelines. And, no, the "idea of spinning plates" it's not "at the core" of DBs. Don't even know what you imply by this. That, for some reason, Oracle say wouldn't take advantage and run orders of magnitude faster on pure dynamic memory? Oracle --and all DBs-- already runs just fine on non spinning SSDs. And most DBs already have special tunings to keep the working set or even everything in the main memory, and never touch the disk. That the underlying storage is a spinning platter of some dynamic memory 100 or 1000 times faster will not matter much.

batista 15y ago

http://rethinkdb.com/ http://rethinkdb.com/ just called and they disagree with you. Yes. What about the rest 99.999% of the industry? The thing is that architecturally nothing has really changed from 70's. Which is my case exactly. Despite going from KB of main memory to TB, and from a few MB of hard disk to PB, "nothing has changed". What makes you think this case will be different? And even if it did, Oracle cannot just go and tweak some "magic numbers" (what would those be?) since the idea of spinning plates at the end of a long and perilous pipeline is at the core of any contemporary DBMS. I was talking about the OS level, not Oracle's. Tuning virtual memory and related pipelines. And, no, the "idea of spinning plates" it's not "at the core" of DBs. Don't even know what you imply by this. That, for some reason, Oracle say wouldn't take advantage and run orders of magnitude faster on pure dynamic memory? Oracle --and all DBs-- already runs just fine on non spinning SSDs. And most DBs already have special tunings to keep the working set or even everything in the main memory, and never touch the disk. That the underlying storage is a spinning platter of some dynamic memory 100 or 1000 times faster will not matter much.