Re: Article about supposed "murky" future for Oracle

From: Frank van Bortel <fvanbortel_at_netscape.net>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 22:28:15 +0200
Message-ID: <c4f9ga$dv1$1@news3.tilbu1.nb.home.nl>

Daniel Morgan wrote:

> Serge Rielau wrote:
>

>> Joel Garry wrote:
>>
>>> You really think the MSSQL locking and consistency is acceptable for
>>> nearly all enterprises?  Maybe I missed something, but it seems to
>>> foment lots of strange ideas about those subjects, and I don't mean
>>> just from the O point of view (in fact I think the "rdb way" is most
>>> "correct" and O is a bit oddball, but I've become convinced the "O
>>> way" is generally better for business apps - don't know much about DB2
>>> besides what I see here).
>>
>>
>> FWIW, I have never heard of row-versioning (which is what this all 
>> comnes down to semantically) as a requirement from DB2 customers.
>> Naturally the topic comes up when porting Oracle Apps to DB2 because
>> Apps must be aware of the semantics and changing the isolation level 
>> means changing apps, means porting gets expensive.
>> Interestingly Yukon seems to provide Oracle style isolation level.
>> Whether this feature is being added for migration or to make SQL Server
>> customer happy I can only guess.
>> IMHO versioning is as valid as any other locking scheme.
>> Each having their own ups and downs.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Serge

>
>
> Much of the core functionality of Oracle is dependent upon the
> versioning. Microsoft is attempting to duplicate it to put an end
> to their inability to complete with everything from RAC on down.
> At it most basic level ... it is impossible for SQL Server to
> produce a result set consistent to a point-in-time. Which explains
> to many, especially those inside Microsoft, why they are running
> their corporate financials on SAP with Oracle. A huge embarrasement
> for Ballmer & Co.
>

Moved away from the AS/400's, then eh? ;-)

-- 

Regards,
Frank van Bortel

Received on Wed Mar 31 2004 - 14:28:15 CST