Re: SQL possible equivalent

On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 18:09:14 -0700, euan.garden_at_gmail.com wrote:

>The MVCC comment is a classic, you have previously poo'd poo'd
>SnapShot Isolation and Read Committed Snapshot Isolation in terms of
>their implementations (I apologise I am vague on the details but I
>seem to remember that it has something to do with tempdb vs rollback
>segments), and now you claim its a copy? Can't have it both ways.
>
>Thanks for the friday afternoon laughter.

Strange you didn't take up the challenge posed by Daniel, and only answered it by ridiculing Daniel and Oracle. So far you haven't submitted anything making clear why sqlserver is such a wondrous product.
I assume this is because you know better: sqlserver's technology is lightyears behind Oracle's and given the historical fact that the first 32-bit O/S was delivered by Microsof in 1995, where Dec was already shipping a 32-bit O/S in 1979, you should admit Microsoft is never ever going to make it, and sqlserver will never ever become a corporate database server. This also isn't possible, because sqlserver doesn't run on any scalable O/S, nor will it ever run on any real O/S, not sold by Micrsoft.

I would suggest you would stop trolling this newsgroup, and only return when you have to contribute something other than ridicule.

-- 
Sybrand Bakker
Senior Oracle DBA