Re: L:ist - Can do/do better in MS SQL than Oracle

You can respond to him at his web site.(http://asktom.oracle.com)

I think everyone with any experience would certainly agree that the two databases are different. (I am excluding management types here since a lot of the time they think a database is just a database and they are all the same.)

In reading Tom's response I think you just don't want to use the rather straightforward and standard - at least in the data modeling community - methods of declarative integrity. Anyone can make an argument for just about anything if they artificially load it and don't keep an open mind as to other possibilities.
Jim

"Ben Brugman" <Ben_at_niethier.nl> wrote in message news:a9f8vg$81j$1_at_reader10.wxs.nl...
> I Replied to this to the mail of Thomas Kyte directly because I thought
> this thread was becoming a bit thin, but as his email address was not
> reachable I'll reply here.
>
> The thread was what can not be done in Oracle. One of the anwers
> from me was serializable, with an added example, the example was
> not accepted. So I gave an example which we came upon in real life.
>
> Now solutions were given for the example we came upon. This did involve
> changing the datamodel because of shortcommings of Oracle, but the
> problem can be solved that way.
>
> But the original problem of Oracle not being serializable is still not
> solved.
> So for each transaction, one has to check if there are serialization
> problems
> and if there are they have to be solved.
>
> For each problem there is a solution, but there is no general solution
> for serializable problems in Oracle.
>
> Hereby I show that Oracle and SQL-server are not equivalent. (MS
SQL-server
> does have serializable). Both have there strength's and their weakenesses.
>
> ben brugman.
>
>
>
Received on Tue Apr 16 2002 - 06:50:47 CEST