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: Galen Boyer <galen_boyer_at_yahoo.com>
Date: 19 Feb 2006 19:36:01 -0600
Message-ID: <uaccm3anc.fsf@rcn.com>


On Sun, 19 Feb 2006, tonyrogerson_at_sqlserverfaq.com wrote:
>>> mode.) You have to be careful using it so you don't slow down the
>>> DB. (poor implementation) It will be rare that people will actually
>>> use it in SS because of the performance problems it will generate.
>
> More likely because we don't follow that snapshot isolation religion!
> One site DOES NOT fit all!
>
>>> When would you ever want to read uncommitted records?
>
> No, its been a problem in releases prior to 2005 where people have had
> to resort to it to prevent the writers blocking readers problem,
> having said that, in a great percentage of applications its ok becuase
> of their 'unlikely rollback' scenario

Keep on smoking on the MS bong. Unlikely rollback scenario? What a rationalization for an inferior implementation.

> , but, as an Oracle guy you wouldn't have experience of that so the
> likely comment will be based on religion rather than fact and
> experience.
>
>> However, in Oracle you won't get it if you are just reading. (the
>> bitmap index thing is silly, Oracle recommends not using bitmap
>> indexes in OLTP systems, just in datawarehouse systems)
>
> And I guess everyone follows recommendations as per in the MS
> world.

Every Oracle installation I've ever been in was very aware of that limitation for that particular object.

> You know, one of the impressions I'm taking away from this thread is
> that people never answer the point, I raise or disprove a point and
> suddenly the scope of the topic changes or we move onto something else
> or more comically dribble is posted from some myth on how they THINK
> SQL Server works.

No, your whole argument is founded on locking issues with bit-map indexes. This isn't an indictment no the Oracle server, its an indictment on the usage of a very particular object with very particular usage rules in Oracle. We, on the other hand give you indictments of the inferiority of the SQLServer engine, and you can't defend it, so, instead, you come back to bit-map indexes. The entire MS engine is flawed while an Oracle object has transactional flaws. Yep, the same issue, sure...

>> In SS unless you enter a non-default isolation level (and one MS will
>> say you shouldn't enter for long due to performance problems) readers
>> will lock and cause deadlocks.
>
> Please, now you are being ridiculous; where on earth does MS state
> you shouldn't enter a non-default isolation level for long - behave,
> stop making things up - its laughable. The snapshot stuff works just
> fine, and you can get round deadlocks using it by coding properly AS
> YOU ARE SUPPOSE TO DO IN ORACLE lol!

Man you jump around. We aren't discussing deadlocks at this point, but instead we are discussing the fundamental differences in transactional handling.

-- 
Galen Boyer
Received on Sun Feb 19 2006 - 19:36:01 CST

Original text of this message

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