[Magma] performance (was: test result)
jhouchin at texoma.net
Wed Aug 7 23:58:21 UTC 2002
I really don't know much about Gemstone other than its expensive.
Big ideas, small budget. My budget for this project isn't much different
than yours. :(
That's why I'm also considering PostgreSQL which Colin's Tantalus uses
or Stephen's BDB. PostgreSQL at this present time would probably be the
safest and most stable for large purposes as such. These are stable
backends to newer Squeak frontends.
Fortunately I am doing this on my own, in my spare time, with technology
I choose. Its my baby.
Unfortunately it also my dime. That limit's my technology somewhat.
However, for the most part, the technology I would like to use, budget
isn't a factor. I like Squeak and I would prefer to use it if at all
I can as necessary, if need be (do I need more disclaimers :), can
upgrade to VW since I can enter for the $500 and use OmniBase (for $?).
But that is as commercial as I can go.
In general I prefer open source both philosophically and monetarily.
Thanks for the input.
That's one nice thing about Squeak/Smalltalk, seasoned veterans.
Not implying anything there Tim. ;)
Tim Rowledge wrote:
> Jimmie Houchin <jhouchin at texoma.net> is claimed by the authorities to have written:
>>I am looking for a database which can handle minimally 4+ million
>>objects. Multi-gig database, possibly 10-20+.
> If you really have that much data it's probably very valuable. I
> wouldn't trust a huge amount of valuable data to _any_ new piece of
> software. Sounds to me like you should consider something commercial
> like Gemstone etc for now. Squeak related databases might become viable
> for 'serious' (defined as something where you lose your job or life)
> usage in the future, given enough testing time etc.
More information about the Squeak-dev