|
|
Posted by Tony Rogerson on 02/07/06 09:52
> Yes, Tony, I ALWAYS believe what MS tells me :) . And I never look at
> the foundation of the product (is it contigous storage, bit
> vector,etc., ?). I always ignore the independent industry groups, and
> my own experience doing consutlign work with SQL products, etcl. Get
> old enought to know the history; partitioning and parallelism are
> add-ons, not fundations in SQL Server. There si nothign wrong with
> that design, buit it has trade-offs. It sucks for VLDB.
Go buy Ken Hendersons book 'Guru guide to SQL Server internals and
architecture'.
SQL Server uses a thread based model, unlike the Sybase product; it releases
threads onto available CPU's; when necessary queries are broken up into
streams and done **in parallel** - you can validate its doing that by a)
looking at the query plan and b) while it is executing using perfmon to
monitor what processes are using what CPU's.
If you don't know these fundemental things about SQL Server then you aren't
much of an expert.
Stick to logical database design and leave the implementation to people who
have been trained and have experience.
Partitioning works fine, in fact, it helped SQL Server to become the first
product to break then 1million TPS on the TPC benchmarks - google it.
> Jeez, you have never left your little ghetto to do any research in the
> big world of RDBMS.
Unlike your often ambiguous ranting I've just backed my statement up - go
get Ken's book, or go and read some of the many white papers on SQL Server
internals.
The folder you keep all your research in is 10 years out of date,
parallelism was brought into SQL Server in version 7.0, you are talking
about 6.5 which nobody uses anymore.
LOL - you just don't understand, your ego is undermining your credibility,
you are sooo stuck in the past with very dated and unreliable research that
its just not funny - check your own website celko.com, the majority of your
links don't even work and yet you do nothing about it - tut tut tut.
--
Tony Rogerson
SQL Server MVP
http://sqlserverfaq.com - free video tutorials
"--CELKO--" <jcelko212@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1139281745.757786.88650@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> SQL Server has partitioning and parallelism. <<
>
> Yes, Tony, I ALWAYS believe what MS tells me :) . And I never look at
> the foundation of the product (is it contigous storage, bit
> vector,etc., ?). I always ignore the independent industry groups, and
> my own experience doing consutlign work with SQL products, etcl. Get
> old enought to know the history; partitioning and parallelism are
> add-ons, not fundations in SQL Server. There si nothign wrong with
> that design, buit it has trade-offs. It sucks for VLDB.
>
>>> Jeez you are soooo out of date on your research and opinions. <<
>
> Jeez, you have never left your little ghetto to do any research in the
> big world of RDBMS.
>
[Back to original message]
|