Re: Smoke and mirrors...

dcruncher4@aim.com wrote: > In article <1223877255.295573@bubbleator.drizzle.com>, DA Morgan says... >> InDeep wrote: >> >>> I think it's also important to understand a little more about how MVCC >>> database(s) work vs non-MVCC. MySQL is moving in that direction, my >>> opinion again, to compete directly with Oracle. MySQL has already said >>> they are producing an MVCC engine, not sure if it's out yet. But back to >>> the point, I think Informix, outside of MVCC is probably going to run >>> faster than it would with MVCC, but I don't know enough about the latest >>> version to know--again talking without knowing. >> One might point out that PostgreSQL, SQL Server 2005 and SQL Server 2008 >> have implementations of MVCC too. How soon DB2 Serge? >> >> But heck why go with the overhead of MVCC when you can have dirty reads. >> You can wash your car faster too if you don't mind leaving it a bit >> dirty. > > Informix has ability to support read consistent > since ver 11.10 without the overhead of MVCC. > SQL Server's implementation is really crude with > versions of row created in temp dbspace which > increased CPU usage dramatically. > > Informix just uses the information already available in > logical logs and gives the user a read consistent version > of a query even if some of the rows are locked. Daniel, see my comment further up. And if you have Db2 questions I know you know where to go to ask them - of course I won't answer future feature questions as little as Mark does. Cheers Serge -- Serge Rielau DB2 Solutions Development IBM Toronto Lab