Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: Article about supposed "murky" future for Oracle

Re: Article about supposed "murky" future for Oracle

From: Daniel Morgan <>
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 20:20:41 -0800
Message-ID: <1080534018.934078@yasure>

Serge Rielau wrote:

> Joel Garry wrote:

>> You really think the MSSQL locking and consistency is acceptable for
>> nearly all enterprises?  Maybe I missed something, but it seems to
>> foment lots of strange ideas about those subjects, and I don't mean
>> just from the O point of view (in fact I think the "rdb way" is most
>> "correct" and O is a bit oddball, but I've become convinced the "O
>> way" is generally better for business apps - don't know much about DB2
>> besides what I see here).

> FWIW, I have never heard of row-versioning (which is what this all
> comnes down to semantically) as a requirement from DB2 customers.
> Naturally the topic comes up when porting Oracle Apps to DB2 because
> Apps must be aware of the semantics and changing the isolation level
> means changing apps, means porting gets expensive.
> Interestingly Yukon seems to provide Oracle style isolation level.
> Whether this feature is being added for migration or to make SQL Server
> customer happy I can only guess.
> IMHO versioning is as valid as any other locking scheme.
> Each having their own ups and downs.
> Cheers
> Serge

Much of the core functionality of Oracle is dependent upon the versioning. Microsoft is attempting to duplicate it to put an end to their inability to complete with everything from RAC on down. At it most basic level ... it is impossible for SQL Server to produce a result set consistent to a point-in-time. Which explains to many, especially those inside Microsoft, why they are running their corporate financials on SAP with Oracle. A huge embarrasement for Ballmer & Co.

Daniel Morgan
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)
Received on Sun Mar 28 2004 - 22:20:41 CST

Original text of this message