Re: Db2, Oracle, SQL Server

Noons wrote:
> lied conclusion that other databases take row locks on
> reads or store locks on blocks is completely false and misinformed.
> I have already advised your sorry lot to get a copy of Steve Adams'
> book and LEARN how locks should be done properly in a database.
I don't know this guy.. But his resume certainly implies a certain bias which may explain why he's not that widely known beyond this crowd.... http://www.oreillynet.com/cs/catalog/view/au/604?x-t=book.view If we look at a random, more generic and most certainly less biased CS lecture (found on google with 30sec investment): http://www.cse.mrt.ac.lk/pg/msc/lecnotes/cs5251/Lecture8.ppt I find little stating that multiversion concurrency is "better". Its just a different techique, just like e.g. optimistic locking. Each has its uses, up and downsides.

Isn't it ironic that if SQL Server 2005 ever ships it will be the only mainstream DBMS supporting all major isolation levels?

Cheers
Serge

-- 
Serge Rielau
DB2 SQL Compiler Development
IBM Toronto Lab