Talk:In-memory processing: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 09:26, 16 January 2015

Revision as of 18:59, 11 September 2015

Line 11:

This topic is increasingly important because most modern RDBMS support in-memory database functions and users need to understand when and how to use and tune these features. In-memory databases are distinct from in-memory processing by being transactional, by being durable (through durable transaction logs), and by supporting the usual DBMS features such as query languages. Falling DRAM prices have driven major improvements in the cost-effectiveness of in-memory database technologies, and they are now commonly mainstream. MySQL and Oracle have long supported this, and with the 2014 release Microsoft SQL Server also supports it. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.93.83.117|72.93.83.117]] ([[User talk:72.93.83.117|talk]]) 14:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

———

These topics have little in common. IMDB is a large, established application ___domain. In-memory processing is just a grab bag of generic techniques.

* [http://seekingalpha.com/article/3477026-micron-3d-xpoint-in-imdb Micron: 3D XPoint In IMDB] — 30 August 2015

<blockquote>

Credit Suisse made the assertion that around 1.3 million - 1.4 million servers were running Oracle databases last year. Pitzer suggests a 2.5% penetration with 32 TB of DRAM would be a good estimate of the demand for DRAM created by IMDB.

</blockquote>

This article is a stock pump, so apply salt in the metric prefix of your choice, but it's clear enough that this is a big, established market segment.

This discussion hasn't really gone anywhere and the proposer is MIA, so I'm removing the merge proposal from the top of the article page. &mdash; [[user:MaxEnt|MaxEnt]] 18:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)