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 archit

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.