Re: Informix vs. Sybase vs. Oracle vs. (gasp) MS SQL Server
From: Anthony Mandic <no_sp.am_at_agd.nsw.gov.au>
Date: 1997/12/02
Message-ID: <348385DE.2C1_at_agd.nsw.gov.au>#1/1
> :row level locking. Answer that for me...
>
> I'm not refuting it. I'm saying it's not based on Sybases lack of row-level
> locking.
Date: 1997/12/02
Message-ID: <348385DE.2C1_at_agd.nsw.gov.au>#1/1
Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>
> On 01 Dec 1997 09:56:43 -0700, Pablo Sanchez <pablo_at_sgi.com> wrote:
>
> :>>>>> "Gary" == Gary L Burnore <gburnore> writes:
> :Gary>
> :Gary> Tell the airlines that row-level locking isn't
> :Gary> important. If the entire seating table for a flight
> :Gary> was locked for one attendent to assign you a seat,
> :Gary> it'd be caos.
> :
> :I doubt very much that SABRE places a logical lock on a
> :seat. It more than likely updates the row with a "lock
> :out".
>
> You DOUBT? Meaning you don't know? Figures.
More likely he doubts because he has enough experience to know better and he expects SABRE's programmers would too. Would you?> :than Informix? After all, TPC-C's are OLTP and Informix has
> :As I've said, if you look at the TPC-C you can see that for
> :a well behaved application there isn't a problem. How do
> :you refute that Sybase currently has a higher tpmC value
> :row level locking. Answer that for me...
>
> I'm not refuting it. I'm saying it's not based on Sybases lack of row-level
> locking.
Well, how about enlightening us by telling what it is based on?
-am Received on Tue Dec 02 1997 - 00:00:00 CET