Take the 2-minute tour ×
Database Administrators Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for database professionals who wish to improve their database skills and learn from others in the community. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I am new here, so please be nice...

I have a question regarding TimesTen & Oracle. I have attempted an experiment with both pieces of software, and realize that the query speed on a table is slower on TimesTen than on Oracle.

The experiment setup was as follows:

  • 500,000 rows of data
  • count(*) query on a column which is NOT a candidate key

Table definition:

CREATE TABLE menu(DISH_ID NUMBER NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY, price NUMBER(7))

Query: SELECT COUNT(*) FROM menu WHERE price <= 50. The price value increases uniformly until the largest value in the DB. Time taken for the query to be executed 1000 times was recorded.

The query speed for different ranges is consistently slower on TimesTen, as compared to Oracle. No indexes were built on the search key. Is there a particular reason for this?

Other notes: I ran the same experiment, but built an index on the search key on both TimesTen & on 10g, and the difference is stark on TimesTen's favour.

share|improve this question
    
Perhaps you could provide more detail. For instance, the precise tables and queries you ran, along with details of the exact hardware. On the surface of it, I would expect TimesTen to be faster than the standard Oracle database since TimesTen is in-memory by design. –  Max Vernon Mar 8 '13 at 18:42
    
Give me some time while I attempt to obscure the data –  bryansis2010 Mar 8 '13 at 18:50
    
TimesTen is IMDB. Was the table in memory or did you use passthrough query (and in the end use the rdbms to access the data)? –  ik_zelf Mar 8 '13 at 18:50
    
I think the table is in-memory? While the query was being run, I did not see my machine reading my hard drive. I am quite sure it is in-memory. –  bryansis2010 Mar 8 '13 at 18:56
    
The table could have been cached on the Oracle RDBMS side, which would also have caused no hard drive activity. –  David Aldridge Mar 10 '13 at 12:52
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.