On Sun, 19 Feb 2006, jim dot scuba dot kennedy at gee male dot com
wrote:
>
> "Galen Boyer" <galen_boyer_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:uzmkncj93.fsf_at_rcn.com...
>> On Sun, 19 Feb 2006, tonyrogerson_at_sqlserverfaq.com wrote:
>>
>> > You would set the database options (once) to allow this
>> > functionality....
>> >
>> > SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL SNAPSHOT
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> >
>> > Or, if you to wait on update...
>> >
>> > SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL READ COMMITTED
>> >
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Hm... Even in your database code you are extremely cognizant of the
>> database locking issues setting transaction isolation level to some
>> snapshot for if you, what?, want a consistent view coming back from a
>> query, then, what?, read committed? You have to ask for that?
>> WTF!!! You actually have to deliberately ask for the database to
>> only show you committed rows? WTF? I thought SQLServer was finally
>> caught up to Oracle! Let me ask you one fundamental question.
>>
>> When would you ever want to read uncommitted records?
>>
>> There is the question. If you answer nothing else, answer that one
>> simple question.
>>
>> > Anyway, I'm done here; you guys believe what you want
>>
>> We don't believe anything. We are 100% assured of transactional
>> integrity when using the Oracle database server.
>>
>> > ; the reality is different!
>>
>> Yes, as always, Oracle remains far ahead of SQLServer in this
>> fundamental respect.
>>
>> --
>> Galen Boyer
>
> Galen, You need read committed so you can have a system that works the
> same as a file based database (eg Clipper or xbase et al.) The
> snapshot isolation thing in SS is a KLUDGE. (I thank my lucky stars
> Oracle doesn't allow this mode.)
I'm basically trying to get Tony to admit this but he keeps on dodging.
--
Galen Boyer
Received on Sun Feb 19 2006 - 12:13:06 CST
