> Writers block readers and readers block writers in SQLServer. There is
> no getting around this fundamental issue
Rubbish - try reading the thread!
--
Tony Rogerson
SQL Server MVP
http://sqlserverfaq.com - free video tutorials
"Galen Boyer" <galen_boyer_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:uslqh9scq.fsf_at_rcn.com...
> On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, tonyrogerson_at_sqlserverfaq.com wrote:
>>> 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,
>
> At the time, Sybase was king, and MS saw fit to invest in that. That,
> in no way makes it the right implementation.
>
> Writers block readers and readers block writers in SQLServer. There is
> no getting around this fundamental issue and because of it SQL Server
> will always be fundamentally a completely inferior product.
>
>
>> the proof is in the user base, NUMBER OF INSTALLS using the product
>> which is the target.
>
> How the hell is that ever the measure of the quality of a product? It
> is a measure of the power of the marketing department, period. Many
> people buy Oracle because of the marketing hoopla instead of their
> needs. How many companies need Oracle? Not nearly as many as have it
> installed. MySql or PostGre would serve them quite well.
>
>> If the product is crap then nobody would use it - would they?
>
> Look, SQL Server is not crap, by any means. It is a very fine
> database. But, we are not discussing that. We are discussing whether
> it is as good as Oracle, or, from the thread, the latest feature set.
> SS can handle enterprise level database needs. It is a fine solution.
> But, that in now way, hides the fact that fundamentally, Oracle is a far
> superior database server than SQLServer is and will ever be, because of
> fundamental ways the two started out.
>
> --
> Galen Boyer
Received on Sat Feb 18 2006 - 04:39:32 CST
