On Sun, 12 Feb 2006, tonyrogerson_at_sqlserverfaq.com wrote:
> Thanks Mark, yes...
>
> This gives statement level snapshop...
>
> ALTER DATABASE Concurrency SET READ_COMMITTED_SNAPSHOT ON
>
> and/or
>
> This gives transaction level snapshop...
>
> ALTER DATABASE Concurrency SET ALLOW_SNAPSHOT_ISOLATION ON
>
> The later is the transaction versioning that Oracle offers; the former
> just gives the last committed value and doesn't block the writer; both
> can be in force if necessary.
My biggest issue with this is that SQLServer has just implemented this.
I have no idea how well it works, and I have no trust that it actually
is a solid implementation. Oracle's fundamental architecture, in place
since God knows what version, has always supported the fact that writers
don't block readers and readers don't block writers. Heck, even as you
show, SQLServer tries to implement both sides of the house with
different levels. I just don't see how, in such a late release, that
anybody is going to believe they got it right, while we are 100% certain
Oracle did get that right.
--
Galen Boyer
Received on Thu Feb 16 2006 - 18:18:04 CST
