"Do you think SQL Anywhere is scalable enough... or should we just use Oracle so we are sure?"
I have a client who has big plans -- and that's the question he asked me today.
And, quite frankly, I don't have experience on databases that come close to the limits of SQL Anywhere.
The only limit I've run into in the past is uptime... I want 100% application uptime. And now I have it (knock on wood). We didn't have 100% application uptime until we got replication going... and now it's trivial to toggle our apps between instances of SQLA, so that we can install patches, reboot machines, whatever needs doing.
However, it would seem to me that SQL Anywhere is pretty much limitless in its transaction processing capability... I know that the size of the database has limitations based on the size of the media, but given that you can replicate the database, then divide the workload across thousands of servers installed across multiple data centers, the only real limit on SQLA is storage, right?
Yeah, yeah, I know, there is much more to managing large databases than this... but theoretically anyway, would a well-architected database in SQLA be unlimited in transaction processing capability?
I'm getting popcorn. (No oracle bashing please. Plenty of that elsewhere.)
Regarding your use-case as mostly selects in a web environment in my opinion with the new scale-out mechanism (>=V 12) it comes close to unlimited.
So for you it's more a question of having enough hardware and bandwidth between the servers.
answered 23 Mar '11, 03:46