Re: MS SQL Server vs Oracle, MySQL or MongoDB
From: Hans Forbrich <fuzzy.graybeard_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 09:48:51 -0600
Message-ID: <5400A0E3.9030607_at_gmail.com>
On 29/08/2014 9:21 AM, Yong Huang (Redacted sender yong321_at_yahoo.com for DMARC) wrote:
> Reading Jonathan's blogs on SQL Server reminds me of Laimutis's old
> question: Why is SQL statement parsing a big issue to Oracle but not to
> SQL Server?
> http://www.freelists.org/post/oracle-l/Any-reason-not-to-have-logic-in-the-db,17
>
> That's a great question and I'd love to hear some comments.
>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 09:48:51 -0600
Message-ID: <5400A0E3.9030607_at_gmail.com>
On 29/08/2014 9:21 AM, Yong Huang (Redacted sender yong321_at_yahoo.com for DMARC) wrote:
> Reading Jonathan's blogs on SQL Server reminds me of Laimutis's old
> question: Why is SQL statement parsing a big issue to Oracle but not to
> SQL Server?
> http://www.freelists.org/post/oracle-l/Any-reason-not-to-have-logic-in-the-db,17
>
> That's a great question and I'd love to hear some comments.
>
It's the architecture Oracle decided on - they decided they wanted to share as much as possible to get scalability and avoid locking, and this was done in the day that memory was limited and we had 16 & 32 bit architectures.
On the other hand, explain why dirty reads and releasing locks was so important to SQL Server.
-- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Fri Aug 29 2014 - 17:48:51 CEST