Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!hscfvax!pavlov From: pavlov@hscfvax.harvard.edu (G.Pavlov) Newsgroups: comp.databases Subject: Re: Raw partitions (was: Re: Unix machines for large databases) Message-ID: <573@hscfvax.harvard.edu> Date: 6 Jun 88 03:07:42 GMT References: <564@hscfvax.harvard.edu> <3102@edm.UUCP> <2728@geac.UUCP> <7873@ncoast.UUCP> Organization: Health Sciences Computing Facility, Harvard University Lines: 39 In article <7873@ncoast.UUCP>, allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon S. Allbery) writes: > As quoted from <572@hscfvax.harvard.edu> by pavlov@hscfvax.harvard.edu (G.Pavlov): > +--------------- > | > 2) The throughput is *improved*, since all file system handling is > | > bypassed. ORACLE is typically running on very few and very large > | > Bjorn Engsig @ Dansk Data Elektronik A/S, Herlev, Denmark > | > > | Improved over what ?? > +--------------- > Imporved over (e.g.) Informix. Which is why there is now Informix-Turbo... > which uses raw database partitions. (The difference was obvious when I > moved a Unify database (30MB) from a file to a disk partition.) Sorry, I was obscure in my followup. My question related to a more basic issue: are these two dbms's "faster" than those that do not avail them- selves of this "feature" ? Or is it used to compensate for an overall design that otherwise produces second-rate performance ? Some time ago, a salesman for one of these companies pointed to the raw disk capability as an indication that his product was superior to those which were somehow less technically-advanced because they did not implement the same strategy. Yet, our evaluations showed that this dbms was at best equal in "speed" to others. This led us to what I believe was the correct conclusion, that the underlying data base engine was not as efficient as others. On the other hand, we also felt that large "black box" raw files would be more difficult to manage in a disaster/failure situation. Pointing out a technical feature as unique to a product is often a very powerful, if less-than-honest marketing technique. In some cases, the tecnical feature is present in other, competing, products, but no one thought that it was worth making an issue of (this "trick" goes back to the thirties at the very least, in general consumer product advertising). In other cases, such as the one above, it is needed to bring the product up to the level of competitiveness which it would not meet otherwise. greg pavlov, fstrf, amherst, ny