Re: Concurrency in an RDB

Bob Badour wrote:
> 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.

Yes, I read that paper and posted a comment on it. I have spent a lot of time addressing the performance issues of a "lazy group replication". If I'm not mistaken my algorithms are more like O(n log n) than O(n ^3). The paper didn't elaborate on its assumptions and I haven't (yet) read it carefully.

> I thought I was rude when I outright called David and Dan idiots. Since
> when did folks decide it is rude to point to a 10 year old research
> paper where some really top minds already demonstrated the limitations
> of somebody's 'new' idea. Isn't that what we have been calling the
> 'polite' way to burst the bubble all these years? When did it become
> more rude than calling someone an idiot?!?

I commend you for citing something specific (and relevant) like the above link.

I was talking about your comment "You may open any book on transactions. Jim Gray wrote one a decade or two ago that would suffice".

[snip]

Cheers,
David Received on Sat Dec 16 2006 - 05:13:03 CET