Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: Database or store to handle 30 Mb/sec and 40,000 inserts/sec

Re: Database or store to handle 30 Mb/sec and 40,000 inserts/sec

From: Tony Rogerson <tonyrogerson_at_sqlserverfaq.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 17:16:52 -0000
Message-ID: <dt50df$egm$1$830fa795@news.demon.co.uk>


> My biggest issue with this is that SQLServer has just implemented this.
> I have no idea how well it works, and I have no trust that it actually
> is a solid implementation. Oracle's fundamental architecture, in place
> since God knows what version, has always supported the fact that writers
> don't block readers and readers don't block writers. Heck, even as you
> show, SQLServer tries to implement both sides of the house with
> different levels. I just don't see how, in such a late release, that
> anybody is going to believe they got it right, while we are 100% certain
> Oracle did get that right.

We can say that about anything though, including Oracle Express which I think is in beta still?

Microsoft SQL Server had a massive beta program with hundreds of thousands of participants and it was around 3 years long, they also had a very large number of big customers go live with 2005 at RTM, that includes some big banks like Nationwide here in the UK.

I've no doubt Oracle got it right with the way they designed their engine, in the same way I think Microsoft and IBM are right in the way they designed theirs too - different ideas and implementations don't necessarily mean they are wrong, the proof is in the user base, NUMBER OF INSTALLS using the product which is the target.

If the product is crap then nobody would use it - would they?

-- 
Tony Rogerson
SQL Server MVP
http://sqlserverfaq.com - free video tutorials


"Galen Boyer" <galen_boyer_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:uaccqbrd7.fsf_at_rcn.com...

> On Sun, 12 Feb 2006, tonyrogerson_at_sqlserverfaq.com wrote:
>> Thanks Mark, yes...
>>
>> This gives statement level snapshop...
>>
>> ALTER DATABASE Concurrency SET READ_COMMITTED_SNAPSHOT ON
>>
>> and/or
>>
>> This gives transaction level snapshop...
>>
>> ALTER DATABASE Concurrency SET ALLOW_SNAPSHOT_ISOLATION ON
>>
>> The later is the transaction versioning that Oracle offers; the former
>> just gives the last committed value and doesn't block the writer; both
>> can be in force if necessary.
>
> My biggest issue with this is that SQLServer has just implemented this.
> I have no idea how well it works, and I have no trust that it actually
> is a solid implementation. Oracle's fundamental architecture, in place
> since God knows what version, has always supported the fact that writers
> don't block readers and readers don't block writers. Heck, even as you
> show, SQLServer tries to implement both sides of the house with
> different levels. I just don't see how, in such a late release, that
> anybody is going to believe they got it right, while we are 100% certain
> Oracle did get that right.
>
> --
> Galen Boyer
Received on Fri Feb 17 2006 - 11:16:52 CST

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US