Re: Informix vs. Sybase vs. Oracle vs. (gasp) MS SQL Server

Joel Garry wrote:

> Anthony Mandic <no_sp.am_at_agd.nsw.gov.au> wrote:
>
> > They claim they need row level locking because they all stupidly
> > lock selected data for the duration of a transaction that may or may
> > not utilmately do an update or insert. The changes to correct this sort
> > of nonsense are trivial. Why they won't do the change is obvious. These
> > programs cater to the lowest common denominator in database technology.
> > Thus they don't have a real grasp of proper client/server methodology.
>
> I agree with the lcd problem, but the changes are not trivial. Can you say
> Repeatable Read? It's like changing the newsgroup comp.databases.oracle to
> a hierarchy - the change is trivial, but just try to implement it completely.
> Coming up on a year, and people still post here.

	This depends on where you're reading and posting from. :-)
	The solution that works for all cases (the lcd) is quite simple.
	The change may or may not be trivial depending on the complexity
	of the product. By complexity, I don't mean the schema design
	but the design of the programs that work with it. If they
	were well designed then the changes should be trivial.

-am Received on Wed Nov 26 1997 - 00:00:00 CET