Re: tx isolation

In the interests of balance, tried to find some Microsoft links that refute this. Only came up with the following;

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;en-us;43199& http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluation/compare/mythandreality.asp

The first describes the problems in SQL Server and details some of the workarounds, it does not mention that it applies to SQL Server 2000, but then there is nothing in the SQL Server 2000 book I have here to imply that anything has changed. Note to readers - its okay I have more Oracle books than SQL Server :)

The second is in reference to the previous Oracle link (9i vs SQL Server and locking issues), but interesting does not address / refute the locking issues. Read into that what you will!

HTH KJP KevJohnP wrote:
> Hi Christoph
>
> There has been a lot posted about this previously. Your best bet would
> be to search groups.google.com / google.com and look for the following;
>
> "read consistency" or more accurately "multi-version read consistency"
> "lock escalation" or "escalating locks" etc.
>
> In a nutshell, Oracle was architected many versions ago (ie it is not a
> new feature) to ensure that those reading from the database do not have
> to wait for those updating the database. This is not the case in many
> other databases such as sql server and you have to resort to escalating
> locks, reading uncommitted transactions etc. to overcome it.
>
> An Oracle biased link is here
> http://www.oracle.com/ip/deploy/database/oracle9i/db_sql_ma_askms.html
>
> Further detail is in the Concepts document which can be found at the
> Oracle documentation site tahiti.oracle.com
>
> HTH
>
> KJP
>
> Christoph Seidel wrote:
>

>> can one give me some hints about how oracle is better in realizing tx
>> isolation compared with other databases (e.g. sql server)
>>
>>