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

From: Galen Boyer <galen_boyer_at_yahoo.com>
Date: 18 Feb 2006 11:35:01 -0600
Message-ID: <upslkh02y.fsf@rcn.com>

On Sat, 18 Feb 2006, tonyrogerson_at_sqlserverfaq.com wrote:

>> How does this lead credence to the fact the SQLServer's concurrency
>> model is somehow on par with Oracle's?

>
> I didn't realise I was comparing, I thought I was pointing out Mark
> Townsend floors in what he stated that Oracle takes care of everything
> - well it doesn't! You still as a developer need to code for
> concurrency, deadlocks etc... so trying to flower it up into some
> magical beast is laughable.
>
> Do a google on oracle and deadlock and there is tons of stuff so don't
> try and pull wool over my eyes. You do get deadlocks in Oracle and the
> reasons give in the articles I've read are exactly the same reasons we
> get deadlocks in SQL Server.

Please explain. A deadlock in Oracle is an application bug, only. A deadlock in SQLServer is something that cannot be avoided. They can be avoided in Oracle. I'm not pulling the wool over anyone's eyes. Deadlocks happen in Oracle, but because of poor programming, not poor underlying server architecture, contrary to SQLServer.

> I don't understand why you are so touchy on this subject....

Touchy? Not in the least.

-- 
Galen Boyer

Received on Sat Feb 18 2006 - 11:35:01 CST