Re: SQL Server vs INFORMIX

My $0.02 here: We came to a customer's OLTP installation w/ row-level locking implemented, a *small* number of users, 10 or so at a time. Background daemons are inserting into tables 24x7. But the client had to do large set deletions at various points during the day. This completely locked out the users and background processes inserting into the DB. The *only* solution was to implement row-level locking. That was the only thing that would fix the problem. In this case, the business came completely to a halt because of page-level locking. A DB w/o row-level locking would have been *entirely* unacceptable. In cases like this, it's not a matter of theory or opinion, it's do or die. The lack of page-level locking would be a reason I could never recommend such a DB. It's crucial to have the choice of locking implementations, IMO. Cosmo Lee Reiner Kunz wrote: > Hi Richard, > > where's the problem of no row-level-locking? In your opinion each > database > using other locking methods are garbage. So, please tell me where do > you > see the big disadvantage of no row-level-locking during UPDATEs and > DELETEs? > > -- > cu Reiner (munich, germany) > > Richard Stanford <richards@herald.net> schrieb im Beitrag > <Pine.BSF.3.91.971003154600.11473B-100000@kilimanjaro.dal > as.herald.net>... > > On 3 Oct 1997, Ing. Melvin Perez Cedano wrote: > > > > The number one biggest disadvantage of SQLServer? No support for > row-level > > locking during updates and deletes. -- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ADDRESS ALTERED TO FOIL SPAMMERS: Remove "*NO-SPAM*" to reply. Cosmo Lee Multi-User Computer Systems Brooklyn, NY "JUST SAY 'NO' TO SPAM" * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *