Re: Newbie's Oracle 9i impression: it sucks

>But you've still missed the point: I don't want to read uncommitted data.
>Uncommitted data is data that's in flux for all manner of reasons. All I
>want to be able to do is to read the *previously* committed version of the
>data, whilst you are in the *middle* of updating it, without being locked
>out, and without having to code anything special to prevent the lock out.

Before, a data is committed, is not in flux, the row is EXACTLY as it was prior to the beginning of trasaction. Let me say this again, MS SQL perfectly lets you read data when the same row is being updated. NO PROBLEM. You seem to indicate Oracle can do this while MS SQL cannot, this is simply not true.

>What's more, when I start a report at 10.00am, that runs for 15 minutes, and
>arrives at the emp table at 10.09, I don't want that report to show me the
>data you committed in the emp table at 10.06, because my report should be
>based on data that was there at 10.00am only. Oracle does that without
>batting an eyelid. SQL Server doesn't.
>
>I see the block size and long running transaction issues got snipped again.

I already answered you on the block size. MS SQL has "auto update" statisitics feature that automatically optimizes and updates index statistics in a run and large trasnactions.

>You asked for rational responses. How about dealing with the issues I
>actually raised rather than talking about something I didn't? That, I think,
>would be rational.
>
>HJR
I only replied on the issues to your post. Your ASSUMPTION that I raised other issues is simply not true. Please point out any of my replies to you which did not stick to the issue?

Jinsoo
MCDBA, MCSD, MCSE+I Received on Wed May 22 2002 - 06:31:26 CDT