Re: Concurrant Read Consistency - why only Oracle?

Hi Joachim,

It seems an obvious advantage to me too..I've recently been in an environment involving Sybase and books on the topic are rife with things the DBA should do to avoid these so-called 'dirty reads'..also the locking mechanism is driving me to drink :) ..compared to Oracle, transactions seem to deadlock each other as a matter of routine.

I never even heard the term 'dirty reads' until I landed in my new environment..

I know this doesn't answer your question really..perhaps the others just haven't caught up yet or maybe it's a conscious trade-off in terms of resource issues..probably why Oracle is the most widely licensed enterprise level database.

Best regards Joachim,

Steve

In article <920c2e$2n5$07$1_at_news.t-online.com>,   joachim_pense_at_hotmail.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> All DBMS's I know establish consistency by locking, possibly allowing
 "you
> asked for it, you got it"-type dirty reads - all except Oracle.
>
> Is there a reason for that?
> Is the Oracle read consistency concept that uses the rollback log
 files
> patented?
> Or is there a serious drawback that keeps the other manufacturers from
> using it?
>
> For me it looks like an obvious advantage, so there must be something
 that
> I'm missing.
>
> Joachim
>
>

Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/ Received on Sat Dec 23 2000 - 06:55:12 CST