Re: Microsoft destroys TPC-C records!

On Wed, 5 Apr 2000 13:40:33 +0100, "Jonathan Lewis" <jonathan_at_jlcomp.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Read it through again - it is describing something
>that could happen in Oracle and requires application
>design to implement the business rule.

Nobody designs a transaction for this sort of thing that way. Unless limited a priori by the writer-blocks-reader bit.

They are using a limitation of their product to justify the design, then expect ORACLE to follow the same design limitations.

Even more STUPID: they assume ORACLE can't do it their way. By simply locking the rows upfront. Conveniently glossed over, of course.

And they forget to add if there was a manager trying to read those same two accounts, he would have been LOCKED OUT for the duration of the whole moronic lot. That would have been too much like real life now, wouldn't it?

With ORACLE, he would have read the original data, added it to the summary spreadsheet, done the mandatory pie chart and gone out for lunch. And quite correctly, given that nothing is committed yet and the couple are still fighting for the bottom line of each other's account. And that would have true even if ORACLE was doing a "sql server" to match their stupid design.

Typical marketing lunacy!

What's even worse is they come here with their moronic campaigns to "test the waters" and see what the real world will react like. If no one shows them they haven't got a CLUE, they go out and blurb ad-infinitum about their great "products". You can bet this line of argument from them won't last long after this thread is over...

> Writers blocking readers is a bad idea.

And that's a PERIOD! the size of China in front of that. Everyone with ANY clue about databases knows that. But these fellas have sawdust for brains, what can we do...

>
>
>This one's a laugh of course:-
> The SQL Server database can also be set
> up to use the READ UNCOMMITTED ANSI
> standard transaction level, which shows
> account balance information even if the
> data has not been committed (Option 2
> above). In this case the teller sees -$100
> in the checking account, and informs the
> husband that there are insufficient funds,
> which also removes the chance of overdrawing
> funds.
>

Buddy, the whole thing is a laugh These morons haven't got a CLUE what OLTP is all about. They are so used to their "each box runs one single application" model, they can't fathom how out of touch with reality they are.

What they don't know in their ignorant smart-ass approach is that all these things have been COMPLETELY thrashed out ad-nauseum 25 years ago. And the solutions that really work have long been found. Of course, they wouldn't waste time doing a bit of research would they?

Too busy impersonating VP's...

Nah! Microsoft re-invent boiled water? Never!!!

Cheers
Nuno Souto
nsouto_at_nsw.bigpond.net.au.nospam
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/the_Den/index.html Received on Wed Apr 05 2000 - 00:00:00 CDT