Markus Schaber wrote:
>Hi, John,
>
>John Arbash Meinel schrieb:
>
>
>
>>>I am doing research for a project of mine where I need to store
>>>several billion values for a monitoring and historical tracking system
>>>for a big computer system. My currect estimate is that I have to store
>>>(somehow) around 1 billion values each month (possibly more).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>If you have that 1 billion perfectly distributed over all hours of the
>>day, then you need 1e9/30/24/3600 = 385 transactions per second.
>>
>>
>
>I hope that he does not use one transaction per inserted row.
>
>In your in-house tests, we got a speedup factor of up to some hundred
>when bundling rows on insertions. The fastest speed was with using
>bunches of some thousand rows per transaction, and running about 5
>processes in parallel.
>
>
You're right. I guess it just depends on how the data comes in, and what
you can do at the client ends. That is kind of where I was saying put a
machine in front which gathers up the information, and then does a batch
update. If your client can do this directly, then you have the same
advantage.
>
>
John
=:->