Re: ACID et al
From: Daniel Dittmar <daniel.dittmar_at_sap.corp>
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 13:30:20 +0100
Message-ID: <dn408s$lls$1_at_news.sap-ag.de>
>
>
> Did you read what the OP actually wrote ? He does not need any
> concurrency control as access to the DB is serial.
>
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 13:30:20 +0100
Message-ID: <dn408s$lls$1_at_news.sap-ag.de>
vc wrote:
> Daniel Dittmar wrote:
> [...]
>
>>But the database engines still need row level locking (database engines >>using page level locking were not scalable enough). While db locks might >>be less relevant in certain parts of the system, they seem to be still >>very important in others. >> >>Daniel
>
>
> Did you read what the OP actually wrote ? He does not need any
> concurrency control as access to the DB is serial.
>
The OP thinks that most concurrency issues are handled better in the application layer than in the database layer. I described an architecture that does *mostly* that. I rephrase 'But the database engines still need row level locking' as:
It is a requirement for database engines used with SAP R/3 to support row level locking. Therefor, the description in my post does not tell the complete story. An important piece is missing for which I don't have the details.
Daniel Received on Tue Dec 06 2005 - 13:30:20 CET