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

Galen Boyer wrote:

> 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?

As I stated ... it is there for marketing purposes only. The overhead of using it would kill any major database implementation.

Microsoft got the checkbox on their data sheet. That is all it is about. In the same way that they are ANSI compliant only if one also changes other aspects of the product's default configuration.

-- 
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)