Re: Oracle Vs. SQL Server on NT

From: Nuno Guerreiro <nuno-v-guerreiro_at_telecom.pt>
Date: 1998/03/23
Message-ID: <351688a0.715534093@news.telecom.pt>#1/1

On Sun, 22 Mar 1998 12:03:52 -0800, Malcolm Blackhall <blackhal_at_midtown.net> wrote:

>Page level locking is not an issue in all but a few cases if the database is
>properly designed in the first place. Using clustered indexes appropriately can
>solve most contention problems. SQL Server 6.5 does support page level locking
>on inserts if you want to use it.
>

I'm curious about Microsoft's way of controlling concurrency. I've never worked with SQL Server 6.5. What does exactly "page-level locking" mean? Does it mean that whenever I'm updating a table record, the entire block in which it resides gets locked?

Another issue:

How does SQL Server 6.5 handle isolation between transactions? Which of the following levels of isolation defined by the SQL standard is the default?

. Read uncommited
. Read commited (Oracle's default)
. Repeatable read
. Serializable

Thanks to anyone who replies.

Nuno Guerreiro Received on Mon Mar 23 1998 - 00:00:00 CST