Subject Re: Table partitioning
Author johnson_dave2003
--- In, Jacqui Caren
<jacqui.caren@n...> wrote:
> Daniel Rail wrote:
> > I'm with Jim here. The feature is not required. If you want
> > performance and having the database across multiple hard-drives, it is
> > better to go with a RAID system using striping.
> A few years ago we did some work with an Oracle installation.
> The partitioned table allowed up to 10,000 inserts per second
> whereas a 'standard' oracle table was limited to a mere 2,000 IPS
> (for our specific application data).
> In short, this feature provided significant advantages beyond
> working around some very old disk problems.
> Of course, FB is not Oracle. It does not have Ora's overheads
> to surmount so it would not provide any of the advantages
> that it gives Oracle.
> Jacqui

Thanks for the feedback.

We're actually using a gigabit fiber linked DASD array on the Oracle
installation I was describing. RAID buys a lot, but multiple RAID's
more than doubled performance over a single RAID array, and the SAN
DASD array bought another 35% net throughput (after the process
feeding the tables was already showing that it was CPU bound).

When I have a specific need for this kind of throughput need on a
Firebird project I will do some empirical testing and let you know
what I find. My original question was out of curiosity, and is not
representative of any immediate concerns. It sounds like the Firebird
architecture handles things well internally that are tuned in hardware
on other platforms.

Thanks all!