Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : IFMX - Investment Discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Charles Hughes who wrote (8780)	1/15/1998 4:21:00 PM
From: Guy99	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14631

Then MSFT has a lot of nerve to call it 'row locking'. Row locking is irrelevant for brand new records, that by definition there is no contention for yet. Chaz You're certainly right about MSFT, but they've never lacked nerve. With repect to locking on inserts, not quite. If you have page locks you get contention on the 'not yet full' page when doing a high volumn of inserts

To: Charles Hughes who wrote (8780)	1/15/1998 4:21:00 PM
From: Rob Cook	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14631

Well, not quite. If I recall, with a clustered index, you were forced to lock the target page that would hold the new row as opposed to just throwing the row unto a free slot anywhere). With 7.0, it would appear that this is not the case, barring page splits, etc. That said, it would be of little value for most applications. Is this really what M/S is calling row locking? C

To: Charles Hughes who wrote (8780)	1/16/1998 8:33:00 AM
From: David Jaqua	Respond to of 14631

Chaz wrote Then MSFT has a lot of nerve to call it 'row locking'. Row locking is irrelevant for brand new records, that by definition there is no contention for yet. Row level locking for inserts only is significant. For many applications, performance degrades due to page contention when data is added, modified or deleted from the system. Explicit record contention is not necessarily the problem, and in my experience not typically the problem. Of course interts represent only one of the three operations. Having row level locking for all three (insert, update, delete) is better. But it is the locking of the page itself in the absence of row level locking which is usually the real problem. David