Re: Database or store to handle 30 Mb/sec and 40,000 inserts/sec

> I'm basically trying to get Tony to admit this but he keeps on dodging.

I guess I'm going to have a lot of consultancy then (great, be able to afford a new ferrari to sit alongside my testarrossa), having said that Oracle DBA's get paid more - I suppose because the product is more difficult to manage and implement.

The versioning stuff is used in a lot of places now - triggers, online indexes creation/rebuild and the new isolation.

If there where performance problems or scalability problems it will have come out by now judging by the 100'000s of people who have tested the product not to mention the couple of thousand who work on the product in MS itself, does Oracle Express or the product itself have that exposure, judging by independant press I guess not.

Yes, but who am I to argue with people who have probably not even installed or used, let along seen SQL Server 2005.

That reminds me The Simpsons is about to start, I wonder what homer is up to......

No brainer ;)

-- 
Tony Rogerson
SQL Server MVP
http://sqlserverfaq.com - free video tutorials


"Galen Boyer" <galen_boyer_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:uk6brcaiu.fsf_at_rcn.com...
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2006, jim dot scuba dot kennedy at gee male dot com
> wrote:


>>

>> "Galen Boyer" <galen_boyer_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message

>> news:uzmkncj93.fsf_at_rcn.com...

>>> On Sun, 19 Feb 2006, tonyrogerson_at_sqlserverfaq.com wrote:

>>>

>>> > You would set the database options (once) to allow this

>>> > functionality....

>>> >

>>> > SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL SNAPSHOT

>>>

>>> [...]

>>>

>>> >

>>> > Or, if you to wait on update...

>>> >

>>> > SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL READ COMMITTED

>>> >

>>>

>>> [...]

>>>

>>> Hm...  Even in your database code you are extremely cognizant of the

>>> database locking issues setting transaction isolation level to some

>>> snapshot for if you, what?, want a consistent view coming back from a

>>> query, then, what?, read committed?  You have to ask for that?

>>> WTF!!!  You actually have to deliberately ask for the database to

>>> only show you committed rows?  WTF?  I thought SQLServer was finally

>>> caught up to Oracle!  Let me ask you one fundamental question.

>>>

>>>     When would you ever want to read uncommitted records?

>>>

>>> There is the question.  If you answer nothing else, answer that one

>>> simple question.

>>>

>>> > Anyway, I'm done here; you guys believe what you want

>>>

>>> We don't believe anything.  We are 100% assured of transactional

>>> integrity when using the Oracle database server.

>>>

>>> > ; the reality is different!

>>>

>>> Yes, as always, Oracle remains far ahead of SQLServer in this

>>> fundamental respect.

>>>

>>> -- 

>>> Galen Boyer

>>

>> Galen, You need read committed so you can have a system that works the

>> same as a file based database (eg Clipper or xbase et al.)  The

>> snapshot isolation thing in SS is a KLUDGE. (I thank my lucky stars

>> Oracle doesn't allow this mode.)

>
>
> I'm basically trying to get Tony to admit this but he keeps on dodging.
>
> -- 
> Galen Boyer