Re: Microsoft destroys TPC-C records!

See the Locking differences between Oracle and SQLServer http://www.microsoft.com/sql/productinfo/transadvantage.htm

In comp.databases.sybase Nuno Souto <nsouto_at_nsw.bigpond.net.au.nospam> wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Apr 2000 12:33:08 GMT, jahorsch_at_my-deja.com wrote:
 

>>>
>>7.0 has true row level locking now.  

> Remains to be seen how solid or resilient it is. I'm reminded of the
> Ingres "row-locking" turning into table locking when you least
> expected. Usually when the engine was over-loaded. Right when you
> want it most. But hey! Did they rattle-on about it...
 

>>Server 7.0 is a brand new engine with only compatibility left.  

> That to me spells untested, buggy, fragile software. Exactly what
> should be used to keep critical data. :-)
 

>> MS
>>hired some of the best engine builders in the field to make this one.
>>They made it very scalable (as long as NT can scale that far.)
>>
 

> I'm reminded here of the utter crap Sybase used to put out about how
> "modern" their code was compared to ORACLE, yadda-yadda.
 

> They basically picked the code of the old Britton-Lee database
> machine, renamed it, made it run on UNIX and called it a "modern"
> product. Didn't even bother changing the names or the language.
> Still have one of their initial company presentations where they
> clearly say they were all ex-Britton-Lee. No wonder they took AGES
> porting to VMS, darn thing was never written to be portable!
 

> And for a long time, MS was sucked into that one too. Now they are
> using the same technique. Heck, they didn't even bother to change the
> low-level data management. It's still fixed block, based on "devices"
> and all that crap. "best engine builders" my ass!

> The day MS can produce a database that can run equally well on NT or
> UNIX or a mainframe is the day they become relevant. Until then, it's
> just proprietary and locked-in. For all intents and purposes, behind
> the times and old-fashioned in its design strategy.
 

> Tying a database to an OS exclusively is no demonstration of any good
> design technique whatsoever. It's making it dependent on the OS.
> Change the OS and the whole thing craps. Worse: once they start going
> that way, it's very difficult to introduce new stuff at the OS level
> without severely impacting the "tied-in" software. Result: the OS
> progress stales.
 

> Note: not to say NT is bad. I think it's a darn good OS. It has many
> flaws, like any other. But overall, it's a very good effort.
> Particularly since NT4/SP4. Jury still out on 2000. However, for
> large and medium systems UNIX is so far ahead it's not even funny. If
> only MS would get rid of that moronic "registry" idea and the multiple
> re-boots every time anyone so much as clicks on an OK button...
 

> But a good database is one that doesn't depend on intimate OS
> cooperation to run efficiently. That creates a heap of problems for
> both the OS and the database. As MS will find out.

> Cheers
> Nuno Souto
> nsouto_at_nsw.bigpond.net.au.nospam
> http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/the_Den/index.html

-- 
http://www.cooper.com.hk