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

On 22 Feb 2006, tonyrogerson_at_gmail.com wrote:

> Again, you don't answer, lets try again...
>
> "inferior implementation"
> "Until they are the default, it will remain inferior."
>
> Where is your technical argument? Where is the SQL and DDL to back
> that up? Also, you didn't say what version you'd used but that not
> important so long as you post your examples used in SQL Server 2005
> which is what we are discussing.

Oh my god! You just don't get it. SQLServer still supports read uncommitted correct? Why? If it has an implementation that doesn't need to make people choose that inferior path, as opposed to read committed, then, why is this path not the default path?

That question alone is enough to know that this implementation is not performant enough, so it has to keep the old, inferior implementation around.

Please explain why read uncommitted is still supported by MS when it now has an implementation that supports read committed?

-- 
Galen Boyer