[Phoenix-pm] PERL DBI

[Anthony R. Nemmer]

Both.

Metz, Bobby W, WCS wrote:
> Wow.  Catching up on some of these mails.  Have to say I missed some.
> Never seen this list so active on one topic.  Was Model 204 so fast
> because it was non-relational?  Or was it just the indexing scheme you
> think?
> 
> B
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: phoenix-pm-bounces+bwmetz=att.com at pm.org
> [mailto:phoenix-pm-bounces+bwmetz=att.com at pm.org]On Behalf Of Anthony R.
> Nemmer
> Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 3:11 PM
> To: Brock
> Cc: phoenix-pm at pm.org
> Subject: Re: [Phoenix-pm] PERL DBI
> 
> 
> Makes me pine away for the good old days, when I used Model 204 on IBM 
> mainframes, a non-relational database system that could easily handle 
> hundreds of millions of records.  Too bad they never ported it over to 
> Unix or Window, it was a great database engine.  Had a "User Language" 
> database programming language with database and screen primitives that 
> was very Perlish, too.  Model 204 used inverted trees for indexing, so 
> queries were simply bitwise and'ing and or'ing bitmaps together. 
> Response time for a query on a 900 million record database was typically
> 
> under 3 seconds.
> 
> Brock wrote:
>> I say not too bad... 2 and a half million records is nothing to sneeze
>> at. Thats just over 467 rows/sec, I figure. Lot faster than doing it
> by
>> hand! :)
>>
>> Ideas for presentations:
>> * DBI
>> * Profiling Perl Code
>>
>> --Brock
>>
>> On 2006.03.13.14.37, Loo, Peter # PHX wrote:
>> | 
>> | Here is what it took to run:
>> | 
>> | Mon Mar 13 13:05:34 MST 2006
>> | Mon Mar 13 14:31:27 MST 2006
>> | 
>> | SQL> select count(*) from dssppv.tmp_falcon_projections;
>> | 
>> |   COUNT(*)
>> | ----------
>> |    2413059 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Phoenix-pm mailing list
>> Phoenix-pm at pm.org
>> http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/phoenix-pm
>>
>>
> 
> 


-- 

I always have coffee when I watch radar!