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

In article <347BD20A.736B@agd.nsw.gov.au>, Anthony Mandic <no_sp.am@agd.nsw.gov.au> wrote: >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. :-) Yes, but the point is you have to deal with where everyone is 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. Should be ain't is. :0 > >-am -- These opinions are my own and not necessarily those of Information Quest jgarry@eiq.com http://www.informationquest.com http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/joel_garry "See your DBA?" I AM the @#%*& DBA!