Re: Concurrency in an RDB
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 19:30:10 GMT
Message-ID: <6JCgh.33441$cz.498163_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> "David" <davidbl_at_iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>As it turns out I've made significant progress in the OT approach - and
>>I believe the case is compelling. My solution is fast, simple, very
>>efficient and highly scalable. I haven't published any of these
>>results and I don't mind (nor am I surprised) if you don't believe me.
>>
>>If you think the prior work proves me wrong then please summarise the
>>argument or cite the relevant material. Don't be like Bob and
>>reference an entire book. That is rude and makes me wonder whether Bob
>>actually has a specific argument at all.
Is that a book?
http://research.microsoft.com/research/pubs/view.aspx?msr_tr_id=P115
I recall it was an abstract with a link to a paper. The server seems down at the moment so I cannot verify.
BTW, for any who are interested in my not so humble opinion:
Tanj Bennett <- polymath
Dennis Shasha <- polymath
I know less about the others, but if not Jim Gray, who is the authoritative voice on transactions?
The mind boggles....
> The burden of proof is on you. You are making the assertion that > your system is better. Prove it. Why should we do your work for you? > > [snip]
Hear! Hear! Received on Fri Dec 15 2006 - 20:30:10 CET