Re: Crossing over from SQL Server

On Jun 13, 10:40 am, DA Morgan <damor..._at_psoug.org> wrote:
> BothOracleand Sybase can throw away 100% of their code bases and
> that would be irrelevant to the point I am making. What has been recoded
> still uses the same read consistency model, transaction architecture,
> the same locking model: Nor has the verbiage changed.
>
> If you have specific facts that you can point to that show, for
> example undo/rollback segments in SQL Server, I am sure we would all
> be interested.
>

See this is where we find out the real problem, you think that Oracle's solution is so perfect that if an RDBMS implements a different solution to a problem than Oracle that it has to change to be the same or its not worthy.

Just because SQL Server 7/2000/2005/2008 does not have rollback segments, does not mean that it has the same architecture as SQL Server 1.0 thats flawed logic even by your stds.

> PS: Disappointing you is not one of the criteria I use when deciding
> what to post.

Really Daniel you shock me, however do you care about the flawed information you are sharing here and with your outreach students? Because when they get into the real world they are going to be disappointed.

> --
> Daniel A. MorganOracleAce Director & Instructor
> University of Washington
> damor..._at_x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)
> Puget SoundOracleUsers Groupwww.psoug.org

-Euan Received on Fri Jun 13 2008 - 22:41:39 CDT