|
|
Posted by Ed Murphy on 07/15/07 17:04
SQL Menace wrote:
>> You wrote your dB is 300 GB--but how much of this is raw data?
>> Perhaps 10%? The other 90% is junk to link the data (I'm guessing).
>> If so, you can buy 30 GB of RAM and when x86/Windows supports 64 bit
>> better (though I think they already do--Itanium?) you can access this
>> 30 GB with no problem. 30 GB RAM costs about $1000. Not expensive.
> No junk my friend, the data goes back to May 1896
^^
Color *me* impressed. Have they got a version of MUMPS that
works with a SQL back-end now? (God, I hope not; I've heard
horror stories about MUMPS.)
As for Ray Lopez, the reason to use an RDBMS rather than "one
big fat flat file" is the same reason to use an optimizing
compiler rather than hand-hacking assembler, i.e. in many
applications the small increase in execution time is outweighed
by a large decrease in development and maintenance time. If
you need things like data integrity, indexes, and transactions
anyway, then why re-invent those wheels?
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|