Re: multithreading
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 1994 13:04:46 +0000
Message-ID: <785423086snz_at_sambusys.demon.co.uk>
In article <3a9kvf$ccl_at_raffles.technet.sg>
ericsson_at_technet.sg "WanLing Lee" writes:
> I'm currently doing some database evaluations and have
> read some reports comparing the major RDBMS. Some reports
> claim that ORACLE is not true multithreading, saying that
> the multiprocessing architecture only simluates multi-
> threading. Some reports, however says that it is true
> multithreading database product. I'm getting a bit
> confused as to who to believe.
>
> Can anyone help me out?
>
> Confused,
> Wan Ling
Someone is making an artificial distinction. And a Sybase salesman tried to pull the same one on me in a discussion re Sybase vs Oracle. Oracle may well implemented their own internal threading (I don't know - will some one comment?) and if so it might even be better or more apt to Oracle than the MACH or Posix threads are to Sybase.
Following is an extract from a recent posting from Elliot Jaffe (jaffe_at_applicom.co.il) in comp.client-server:
> Just to be clear, threads were not invented by MACH (and CMU). The database
> vendors have been using co-routine implementations internally for many years.
(another name for threads)
> What MACH and its likes did was standardize a threads interface which could
> hide the underlying threading implementation.
>
> Enjoy,
> Elliot jaffe
> Applicom System Ltd.
-- Paul Beardsell SAM Business Systems Ltd ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 21 Finn House, Bevenden St, pbeardsell_at_cix.compulink.co.uk London, N1-6BN, UK. psb_at_sambusys.demon.co.uk (+44 or 0)71 608-2391Received on Mon Nov 21 1994 - 14:04:46 CET