Re: Tricky SQL Problem: Top "n" of queried records

In article <6fbevu$i1a$1_at_nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <bmuller_at_kenan.com> wrote:
>In article <6fakme$rrd$1_at_nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> Sherilyn <Sherilyn_at_sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>
>There is definitely more lock contention in Sybase than there is in Oracle,
>and definitely more instances of deadlocks, which are practically
>non-existant in Oracle. Oracle's (7 and 8) locking strategies are brilliant,
>and in my opinion a lot of Oracle Server's success can be attributed to them.
>
>However, that doesn't mean that Oracle kicks ass over Sybase in every
>respect. Sybase has strengths over Oracle as well. It irritates me when
>people blindly side with one server or the other without understanding the
>technical infrastructure, and by relying on other people's statements
>regarding "row-level locking", etc.

OK, how does one know beforehand whether a commercial package will be welldesigned  enough to not have this problem? Ask the vendor?

How many packages do I have to test and prove have this problem before I'm allowed to say Oracle kicks ass over Sybase?

>
>Anyway, I'm really not interested in participating in a war of any kind,
>and will refrain from doing so.

Sorry, you've already embroiled yourself by intimating that I don't understand the technical infrastructure.

>
>Brenda Muller
>
>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

-- 
These opinions are my own and not necessarily those of Information Quest
jgarry_at_eiq.com                           http://www.informationquest.com
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/joel_garry
"See your DBA?"  I AM the _at_#%*& DBA!