Subject Re: [firebird-support] Re: Active transactions (benchmark results - updated)
Author Valdir Marcos
I agree 100% on part 1 below, it's the main point where FB is more intelligent and smart than any other RDBMS, but on part 2, could I ask a doubt?
For those like me, who have very small companies as clients, which have old and resourceless computers as the FB server. And FB does an excellent job on these old computer where no other RDBMS would install... My question is if Part 2 become true, will FB require a large quantity of memory like its competitors?


Valdir Marcos

----- Original Message -----
From: Alexandre Benson Smith
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 2:35 PM
Subject: Re: [firebird-support] Re: Active transactions (benchmark results - updated)

Ann W. Harrison wrote:

Part 1 = A significant project goal is to minimize the number of tuning
>parameters by thinking about the problems they're meant to address and
>designing the system to handle those problems rather than dropping them
>on the unfortunate dba.

Part 2 = And we should increase the default lock table
>size and the default hash table width - those were designed for
>computers of the 1980's, where every byte of memory counted. Sigh.
And besides what could be improved I think FB does a really good job on
this point.

see you !

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]