Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Data Storage Technology

World's Largest Databases Ranked 356

Posted by CowboyNeal
from the cylinder-sizing dept.
prostoalex writes "Winter Corp. has summarized its findings of the annual TopTen competition, where the world's largest and most hard-working (in terms of load) databases are ranked. The results are in, and this year the contestants were ranked on size, data volume, number of rows and peak workload. I wrote up a brief summary of the top three winners in each category for those too lazy to browse the interactive WinterCorp chart."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

World's Largest Databases Ranked

Comments Filter:
  • Spam databases (Score:2, Insightful)

    by stanmann (602645) on Friday December 12, 2003 @08:12AM (#7699705) Journal
    I wonder how many of the spammers allowed their databases to be evaluated for this list.
  • Re:Google (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Ilgaz (86384) on Friday December 12, 2003 @08:59AM (#7700031) Homepage
    What about visa/mastercard/american express?

    IMHO some of them didn't want to be in that list.
  • Re:94.3TB!?!?! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by kilonad (157396) * on Friday December 12, 2003 @09:24AM (#7700215)
    This is a home grown RDBMS!

    What else do you expect from the company that kinda sorta wrote Unix?
  • pseudo (Score:2, Insightful)

    by OgreChow (206018) on Friday December 12, 2003 @10:05AM (#7700654)
    I would be surprised if some government databases, such as Social Security's, would not rank on this list if they were allowed to be analyzed.
  • Daytona? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by wandazulu (265281) on Friday December 12, 2003 @10:06AM (#7700658)
    Is it just me, or is this the first time anyone has heard of AT&T's Daytona? A quick Google [google.com] search reveals a pdf and 8 links before Daytona becomes Daytona Beach. For such a high ranking, I'd think AT&T would want to make it better known that they have this system.
  • Re:SQL Server? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sphealey (2855) on Friday December 12, 2003 @10:17AM (#7700780)
    It's also this intense stupidity that has prevented us from having a major vendor that actually provides a real RDBMS to this very day. If DBMS people would actually invest a little time in learning about the Relational Model, maybe they'd stop purchasing the crap that Microsoft, Oracle, IBM, etc. keep forcing out and (flamebait here) maybe people would stop installing MySQL and Access and thinking they're going to be good for anything more important than cookie recipes).
    That's exactly how Larry Ellison got his start - he saw a good idea in an IBM tech journal, hired some programmers to implement it, and the result was Oracle. Why don't you (and the others who post this stuff to database-related forums and threads) go ahead and do the same? Actually write and market a "real relational system based on theory"? Then you could stop yelling at everyone else about it.

    sPh

  • Re:SQL Server? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by azaris (699901) on Friday December 12, 2003 @10:22AM (#7700848) Journal

    Well, "SQL server" is a stupid way to refer to a RDBS. That's like calling Apache "perl-server". I'm not surprised the only people chosing to name their RDBS products as SQL-something-or-other are the open source developers and Microsoft. Also I've never heard of MS sueing MySQL or PostgreSQL for use of the term SQL in relation to a RDBS.

    Besides, the product is officially called Microsoft SQL Server and has always been, just like Microsoft Windows, but everybody refers to it as SQL Server or, if there is possibility of confusion, MS SQL Server or MSSQL for short. Is it malevolence on the part of Microsoft if people can't be bothered to use the full name of each and every one of their products?

  • by popeyethesailor (325796) on Friday December 12, 2003 @10:47AM (#7701188)
    I havent read their definition of Peak workload, but I guess it probably means concurrent queries. Even with a persistent connection, shouldnt there be a large number of concurrent queries? With things like parallel querying etc, does the number of connections have to be the same as queries?

    Another factor could be caching; if intelligently used could cut down on the DB workload substantially.
  • Re:SQL Server? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MattRog (527508) on Friday December 12, 2003 @10:59AM (#7701370)
    Because it is *relatively easy* to make a mediocre (Oracle, etc.) implementation of the Relational Model. It is quite difficult to make a truly Relational Database Management System. Not only that, but because the market is so uneducated why would they want to use it in the first place?

The speed of anything depends on the flow of everything.

Working...