Database Capability - # of Transactions

[ericstenson]

Hi- Here is my question. People, where I work, friends of mine, other programmers, etc. are always talking about "best practices" in application design. Specifically, people are taught/told to minimize the number of SQL queries sent. Now, here is the thing, I am personally under the impression that it doesn't really matter, and basically the SQL server is ultra-powerful and can handle just about whatever you throw at it. Doesn't SQL have some really high number of transactions per second, such that in any mid-level application the end user will never notice ANY difference?

Thanks,
Eric

[Ramy Mahrous]

Nothing called transactions per second rather it depends on data capacity sent\received to\from server\application

[ericstenson]

Try Google. I am sure you will find a term called "Transactions Per Second".

[Ramy Mahrous]

ok, what engine you prefer?
1- Performs 100000 transactions per second which in total SELECT, UPDATE, DELETE AND INSERT commands play in table of 1000000 records.

2- Performs 1000 transactions per second which in total SELECT, UPDATE, DELETE AND INSERT commands play in table of 10000000000 records.

??

[ericstenson]

Come on, man. Anyone can set-up an equation that can't be fairly evaluated.

Let's work with your 2 database example above. If you give me the right data, I CAN tell you which database I would rather have... so tell me...

How many transactions per second could Database #2 handle if it only had 1000000 records?

How many transactiosn per second could Database #1 handle if it had 10000000000 records?

If you can answer these questions, one could determine the better database for their needs.

SO, WE CAN CONCLUDE, TRANSACTIONS PER SECOND IS A FAIR FACTOR... WHEN WE HAVE A COMPARISON THAT MAKES SENSE. LOOK AT HOW PEOPLE BENCHMARK DB ENGINES.