Alternative to the TimesTen in memory database [closed]

问题

I just found "Has anyone published a detailed comparison between different in-memory RDBMSs?" that is related to my question.

TimesTen (see also) is a In-Memory Database from oracle.

It has a lot going for it including.

Fast, consistent response time
High transaction throughput
Standard SQL, no application rewrite
Persistent and recoverable
High availability and no data loss

However it is priced out of the reach of most people ($41,500.00 / Processor).

So what alternatives are there, and what are there pros and cons.

(I am using .NET if it changes your answer)

回答1:

A popular in-memory database system is McObject's eXtremeDB, see

http://www.mcobject.com/extremedbfamily.shtml

There is also a good white paper, offered for download from the home page of McObject's Web site, called, "In-Memory Database Systems: Myths and Facts". It clarifies some questions that arise when discussing the technology, such as, "how is an IMDS different from a 'traditional' database running on a RAM disk?"

回答2:

Generally, in this field people also look at kdb from Kx Systems. I think both these systems really had they hay-day in the early 2000's. I would see if a tuned MySQL with a solid state RAID array would give you the performance you need.

BTW, I once wrote a time series database which outperformed both TimesTen and Kdb. It supported a SQL-92 syntax. The key to the performance was binding the schema to C++ template based classes, and using memory mapped files. Allowing for on-the-run schema changes is quite expensive, and defining the schema at compile time, data lookups could be retrieved in just a few assembly instructions.

回答3:

Above question was asked (and answered) way back in 2009. However, the question is still relevant and we can give a 2nd look.

I can suggest following alternatives to TimesTen:

SQLite
- Link: http://www.sqlite.org/inmemorydb.html
- Advantages: Small footprint, It's RDBMS (no application rewrite required)
- Disadvantages: No row-level locking
H2
- Link: http://www.h2database.com/html/features.html#in_memory_databases
- Advantages: It's RDBMS (no application rewrite required), row-level locking
HyperSQL
- Link: http://hsqldb.org/
- Advantages & Disadvantages: Very similar to H2 (above).
Redis
- Link: http://redis.io
- Advantages: Blazingly fast with native support for data structures like list, hash, set, sorted set etc
- Disadvantages: Not an RDBMS (you may have to rewrite your application)

All of the above can run in-memory. Features-wise you might find things missing as compared to TimesTen. But they are certainly worth a look.

回答4:

Another for the list: open-source Tarantool is a persistent in-memory option that like TimesTen supports ACID transactions and SQL. Unlike TimesTen, though, it can be auto-sharded and also features a full Lua application server for stored procedures.

回答5:

I have recently done a comparison betweem Oracle TimesTen and Sybase ASE IMDB.

The article is in two parts and available from the following links.

http://searchoracle.techtarget.com/tip/In-memory-databases-Oracle-TimesTen-vs-Sybase-ASE

http://searchoracle.techtarget.com/tip/In-memory-databases-Oracle-TimesTen-vs-Sybase-ASE-part-2

回答6:

I asked this question a LONG time ago, these days Microsoft SQL Server have "In-Memory OLTP" that is a memory-optimized database engine integrated into the SQL Server engine. It is not cheap, but seems to be very fast for some workloads.