Re: Article about supposed "murky" future for Oracle

From: Daniel Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 17:17:27 -0800
Message-ID: <1080782226.815058@yasure>

rkusenet wrote:

> "Serge Rielau" <srielau_at_ca.eye-be-em.com> wrote
>
>

>>There is no such thing as a free lunch. The versioning comes at a cost
>>too. Pushing a version and managing the rollback segments is not for free.
>>Neither is finding the appropriate version for each row.

>
>
> Not only that. Oracle's versioning is forced even when there is no
> need. I proved this to Daniel few months back. A simple query on yesterday's
> data (which today is only in read mode) can be answered in informix/db2/sqlserver
> without any locks (READ UNCOMMITTED), giving best possible performance. In Oracle
> the system has to still read the SCN from the block to determine the version.
> However efficient it may be, it is still not the same.

<REPEATING MYSELF>
Is there a cost? Of course there is. Everything has a cost. Does it hurt performance and scalability as compared to other RDBMS products sold by other RDBMS vendors?

If you believe it does ... point me to the benchmark from an independent source that verifies your belief.

If not then acknowledge that it is there but insignificant.

You can't complain about something that has no measurable detrimental effect.
</REPEATING MYSELF>

-- 
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

Received on Wed Mar 31 2004 - 19:17:27 CST