Re: lies damn lies and benchmarks

Pablo Sanchez wrote:

> "Daniel Morgan" <dmorgan_at_exesolutions.com> wrote in message
> news:3CDABFF2.A8D28BE6_at_exesolutions.com...
> >
> >
> > Pablo Sanchez wrote:
> >
> > > snipped for brevity>
> > > > I am talking about the Microsoft employees in Redmond WA not the
> > > Sybase
> > > > team.
> > >
> >
> > > Let me try a different tact: what pieces of SQL Server do you
> believe
> > > these employees develop? Let me know also if you believe that the
> > > core team of Oracle kernel developers are still there who
> developed,
> > > let's say, read consistency.
> >
> > I can not reveal information I received after signing a
> non-disclosure
> > with respect to what they did at Microsoft.
>
> Right.
>
> >
> > > I believe you're wrong on both these points. Clearly the TPC-C's
> show
> > > that SQL Server/Sybase don't have scalability issues. Both SQL
> Server
> > > and Sybase have row-level locking. What's your perceived issue
> with
> > > that?
> >
> > You are going to great lengths to avoid the dead elephant in the
> middle of
> > the room. Yes they have row level locking. My mother has row level
> > locking.
>
> Does she have a more cohesive argument base? :o
>
> > They also still have lock escallation and page level locking as
> > the number of row level locks is a limiting resource.
>
> Prove that this is an issue with unbiased, factual data - no
> generalizations please. I won't respond until you do.
>
> > > Multiversioning doesn't give you scalability. A well designed
> > > application gives you scalability. Period.
> >
> > Mutliversioning isn't about scalability it is about consistency and
> > concurrency.
>
> Yes and no. Multiversioning and an in-memory locking scheme are both
> 'about consistency and concurrency' and as TPS increases, they have to
> scale. Both methods of implementing C&C have pro's and con's as
> already listed in a previous post.
>
> Is one better than the other? Nope. TPC-C's and many Sybase ASE/SQL
> Server applications prove otherwise.
>
> If you cannot provide unbiased data to the contrary, I submit this
> thread to be dead. Actually, since you haven't provided _any_ factual
> data on this thread to date, I'll kill the thread now....
>
> To summarize, the two issues you pointed out: row level locking and
> multiversioning are non-issues.
> --
> Pablo Sanchez, High-Performance Database Engineering
> mailto:pablo_at_hpdbe.com
> http://www.hpdbe.com
> Available for short-term and long-term contracts

Well I'm sure Tom and a lot of others will be glad to hear that. It certainly is a relief to me to know that I no longer need to care about multiple users or concurrency.

But I do agree to kill the thread. No point dealing with architecture issues when you can dismiss them with a wave of a magic wand. Now all you have to do is convince Microsoft to drop all of their Oracle databases. <g>

Daniel Morgan Received on Thu May 09 2002 - 17:15:11 CDT