Re: Informix vs. Sybase vs. Oracle vs. (gasp) MS SQL Server

Joel Garry wrote: > Anthony Mandic <no_sp.am@agd.nsw.gov.au> wrote: > > > They claim they need row level locking because they all stupidly > > lock selected data for the duration of a transaction that may or may > > not utilmately do an update or insert. The changes to correct this sort > > of nonsense are trivial. Why they won't do the change is obvious. These > > programs cater to the lowest common denominator in database technology. > > Thus they don't have a real grasp of proper client/server methodology. > > I agree with the lcd problem, but the changes are not trivial. Can you say > Repeatable Read? It's like changing the newsgroup comp.databases.oracle to > a hierarchy - the change is trivial, but just try to implement it completely. > Coming up on a year, and people still post here. This depends on where you're reading and posting from. :-) The solution that works for all cases (the lcd) is quite simple. The change may or may not be trivial depending on the complexity of the product. By complexity, I don't mean the schema design but the design of the programs that work with it. If they were well designed then the changes should be trivial. -am