Re: Which Database (MySQL, Oracle, mSQL, Protgress etc.)

On Sun, 22 Feb 1998 13:47:49 +0100, Philip J. Lewis <philip.j.lewis_at_writeme.com> wrote:
>What !!
>
>Earth calling morons.
>
>>>MySQL(mSQL) : Is a light weight RDBMS, ...
>>>lacks advanced features like transactions and others. Runs on Linux!!
>
>This is a contradiction in terms. NO database lacks the feature
>"transactions". Anything which calls itself a database which does not have
>this "feature" is not a a database but a trivial file management toy. Get
>real !!

Perhaps true (though certainly debatable) this seems to be an issue of diminishing importance.

As the morons move from two tier client server applications (that put a heavy load directly onto the RDBMSes) to using three tiers and more, they are increasingly using things like TP monitors that are responsible for handling transaction management. This takes responsibility for this away from the RDBMS.

Large scale systems like SAP's R/3 in fact *do* use the RDBMS essentially as a "dumb flat table repository," managing transactions within the R/3 processes. Because R/3 is intended to run atop a variety of DBs, it *can't* take advantage of the various DB-platform-specific transaction/locking methods that work in subtly different ways.

As systems grow, along with the need to use TPMs like Tuxedo/MQ/MTS, the importance of having extensive transactional functionality within the RDBMS decreases. When TP responsibilities are split away from the RDBMS, this should provide better scalability. Particularly if it allows the database server to do less work and thus work faster...

>By the way, This is a newsgroup for OracleRdb (or so I thought) so why are
>we discussing this rubbish her ???

The various misspellings and grammatical errors are being propagated across a wide variety of newsgroups because the posting was cross-posted to a total of nine newsgroups. See the "Newsgroups:" line up at the top for more details.

-- 
Intel engineering seem to have misheard Intel marketing strategy. The
phrase was "Divide and conquer" not "Divide and cock up"
(By iialan_at_www.linux.org.uk, Alan Cox)
cbbrowne_at_hex.net -  <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>