Re: Article about supposed "murky" future for Oracle

"rkusenet" <rkusenet_at_sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<c4cifo$2h5tbc$1_at_ID-75254.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> "Thomas Kyte" <thomas.kyte_at_oracle.com> wrote
>
> > Well, I didn't prove that really -- the point I made on page 35 was
> > that
>
> ha ha. this is getting better. So what Daniel Morgan has been doing
> is blindly believing oracle marketing hype. Not very smart of him.
>
>
> > "in practically every other database, if you wanted to get a
> > 'consistent' and 'correct' answer to this query, you would either have
> > to lock the whole table while the sum was calculated or you would have
> > to lock the rows as you read them"
>
> true. But in Informix we use scroll cursor to do it.
>
> BEGIN WORK
> DECLARE SCROLL WITH HOLD CURSOR FOR SELECT ....
> COMMIT WORK
>
> The lock is held for a very short duration of time and COMMIT WORK
> releases the lock. However WITH HOLD retains the cursor after
> COMMIT and which become an immutable copy for that session as long
> as it wants.
>
> Instead of SCROLL CURSOR, a TEMP TABLE can also be created for same.
>
> I am sure same technique will work just fine in SQLServer.
>
> Bottomline: this was never an issue in any enterprise RDBMS.

The previous message with a reference to the Microsoft case study had an interesting bit of trivia in it: That they were upgrading from Ross financials on a VAX (I don't know if they meant Rdb or Oracle). Ross used to run on Informix, but I believe they dropped support of it due to lack of market interest. Much more interest in Oracle, then subsequently MSSQL for that particular financial package. Which just goes to show, a lowest common denominator solution that works is better in the marketplace than any amount of design correctness. Which also can be taken as a judgement on the efficacy of the market. SAP anyone?

Disclaimer: I make lots of money off both Ross and Oracle customers.

jg

--
@home.com is bogus.
http://www.tomshardware.com/howto/20040329/index.html