Re: Transactions: good or bad?
Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 17:53:37 +0100
Message-ID: <b9be8q$1vs0$5_at_gazette.almaden.ibm.com>
"tj bandrowsky" <anakin_at_unitedsoftworks.com> wrote in message
news:af3d9224.0305061606.48d5daae_at_posting.google.com...
> >
> > You go for it Todd.
>
> Ok, on one side, you are arguing against serialization, and on this
> thread, for.
You'll have to point me to where I have argued against serialization. I can't recall that I have.
> You must be either ornery or have a viewpoint of some
> sophistication, and in either case, I'll bite.
Wow, had to look that up in the thesaurus. Wilful, rebellious? Me? No, just after the Truth.
> How transactions may not be necessary
> -------------------------------------
> I imagine you might be able to dispense with transactions in entirety
> if you were willing to record every event as a record with a timestamp
> describing when that action took place. The storage of such events
> (T,X,Y,Z) is barred from storing any compositional knowledge about
> them or any of there terms. That is, if I store an inventory
> reduction, I am not allowed to store the total inventory, only the
> acts of reducing inventory in one spot and adding to another. In
> that case all I have to guarantee is that all of the events are
> captured in entirety, but that is fairly straightfoward to do, and do
> concurrently.
[snip]
> >
> > Semantic optimisation is a general ability of any well implemented RDMBS.
>
> Yes, but you have to implement that RDBMS on top of a server first.
You are confusing databases with DBMSes. I'm all in favour of people selling databases (assuming that Intellectual Properties issues - i.e. stopping people ripping off your database - are fixable). Such sold databases would be application/business domain specific but would all run on a standard, generic business RDBMSes.
Regards
Paul Vernon
Business Intelligence, IBM Global Services
Received on Wed May 07 2003 - 18:53:37 CEST