Revision as of 20:50, 31 December 2021 edit AfroThundr3007730 (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 6,391 edits Assessment (C/Low): Computing (Rater) ← Previous edit		Revision as of 07:30, 23 December 2023 edit undo Rick Jelliffe (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 10,923 edits →Rewrite Next edit →
Line 36: :{{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">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:AlexHajnal\|AlexHajnal]] ([[User talk:AlexHajnal#top\|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/AlexHajnal\|contribs]]) </small> As of Dec 2023, the article still has several problems. * For example, it is completely false in its explanation of Moore's Law. * And it talks of SQL as if there are no in-memory implementations. * 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) == External links modified ==

Talk:In-memory processing: Difference between revisions