Re: Concurrency in an RDB

monarodan_at_gmail.com wrote:

> David wrote:
>

>>Bob goes on about prior work like a broken record.  His comments
>>indicate good understanding of how conventional databases work - ie
>>using pessimistic and fine-grained locking.  However he betrays his
>>arrogance.  Although clearly very intelligent and knowledgeable he
>>doesn't take the effort to understand me.
>>
>>For anyone interested (other than Bob who has stuck his fingers in his
>>ears)

Or perhaps David is just to ignorant to understand how stupid he sounds.

>>From what you've stated, it appears that you're proposing a completely
> different concurrency model than conventional RBDMS employ.

But how is it different from concurrency models that have already been considered and rejected? That's the problem when folks fail to even attempt to address the prior work.

If you want to waste your time strolling back down the primrose path, go right ahead. We competent folks are generally too busy to afford such waste.

   We can
> only assume that your ideas of using OT actually work and scale well;

Why would we assume that? See
http://research.microsoft.com/research/pubs/view.aspx?msr_tr_id=P115

> though, as you've stated, this is an area of research, so I expect
> that you have no evidence yet... and if you do, you probably are not
> prepared to divulge too much...

Idiots. Plonk. Received on Wed Dec 13 2006 - 15:39:37 CET