Talk:In-memory processing: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 07:30, 23 December 2023

Latest revision as of 08:40, 19 January 2025

(6 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{WikiProject Computingbanner shell|class=C|importance=Low}}

{{WikiProject Computing|importance=Low}}

}}

== Merger proposal ==

Line 34 ⟶ 36:

:{{Ping|AlexHajnal}}'''Draftify'''? It appears to have been written like an advert by vendors of "in-memory" database technology(UNDECLARED [[WP:COI]]), and doesn't really explain why it's technically better (which would basically be for operations that need big matrices and clusters that will be read entirely and more than once (otherwise classic read on demand kind of databases would be adequate). I have marked it appropriately. Should it be moved to draft space?[[User:Ethanpet113|Ethanpet113]] ([[User talk:Ethanpet113|talk]]) 08:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

:Agreed. [[User:Dbrusilo|Dbrusilo]] ([[User talk:Dbrusilo|talk]]) 23:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

:{{Ping|Ethanpet113}} Honestly I think the whole article should be nuked. I don't know what the procedure for doing so is though. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:AlexHajnal|AlexHajnal]] ([[User talk:AlexHajnal#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/AlexHajnal|contribs]]) </small>

Line 42 ⟶ 45:

* And it says that in-memory processing gets its speed because data comes into RAM not the disk, but in what world does data bypass the RAM before being allocated to a disk-based RDBMS? Is it somehow talking about DMA...I doubt it. It seems a garbled version of the decision on how soon the in-memory data is synced to the persistant database, or if it is a non-persistant database...or if the RAM is flashed...or something...

So I think it needs much tougher editing, so that the gobbledygook does not confuse the sensible parts.[[User:Rick Jelliffe|Rick Jelliffe]] ([[User talk:Rick Jelliffe|talk]]) 07:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

:{{tick}} I have rewritten the lead. The rest of the article needs to be rewritten to cope with these two different meanings. I have split the article into two sections, one for hardware (the more interesting one) and one for software (which rather looks like it hijacked the topic.) [[User:Rick Jelliffe|Rick Jelliffe]] ([[User talk:Rick Jelliffe|talk]]) 10:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Line 55 ⟶ 60:

Cheers.—[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II</sup>]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">[[User talk:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green;">Talk to my owner</span>]]:Online</sub></small> 05:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

== AI ==

one huge future use-case for CIM can be artificial intelligence since it would reduce the power footprint dramatically.I imagine this might need a rewrite in the upcoming years if research is able to take the leap and get this technology on the market. [[User:Dj Fex55|Dj Fex55]] ([[User talk:Dj Fex55|talk]]) 08:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)