From: "Tony" <tony@my.isp.net>
Newsgroups: comp.databases.theory
References: <mCls5.15537$Q36.1160390@bgtnsc07-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> <39b42c04_1@dilbert.ic.sunysb.edu>
Subject: Re: Optimistic or Pessimistic Concurrency Control?
Lines: 21
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Message-ID: <D8wu5.1288$M37.88812@bgtnsc07-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2000 19:25:23 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.75.155.199
X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net
X-Trace: bgtnsc07-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 968527523 12.75.155.199 (Sat, 09 Sep 2000 19:25:23 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2000 19:25:23 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet


I thought locking WAS a (read, is THE) pessimistic technique.

Tony

"Joe Trubisz" <trubisz@cs.sunysb.edu> wrote in message
news:39b42c04_1@dilbert.ic.sunysb.edu...
> Tony (tony@my.isp.net) wrote:
> : Which is decidedly 'better' (most often used in current commercial
> : databases) optimistic or pessimistic concurrency control and why?
 
> : Tony
>
> Neither. Most use two-phase locking. Some offer optimistic, but
> it's rarely used.
>
> Joe Trubisz
> Dept. of Computer Science
> SUNY Stony Brook
> Stony Brook, NY 11794