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 (8787)	1/15/1998 5:37:00 PM
From: Guy99	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14631

Not so sure about hair splitting but recall we were talking about MS SQL Server's locking mechanism. The question was what good is RLL which only applies to inserts. My Understanding is that the kluge was added to support SAP. In your discussion what you are calling sectors are in SQL Server pages. If you design so that there is one row per page the two are the same. But since SAP puts it's own logical database on top of the RDBMS and utilizes the RDBMS as an access method, it relies on RLL. The issue is really one of the granularity of the locking that you want to do and whether you want to lock physical or logical resources. If you're going to support RLL why not FLL (field level locking) and if FLL is good how about BLL (byte level locking), then there could be bLL (bit level locking). You can't get any more fine grained since a bit is the minimum size for information. The more fine grained your locking, the greater the overhead to manage to locks. SQL Server derrived from Sybase which as you may recall was the first RDBMS based on general purpose hardware which was designed for production OLTP applications. At the time, it was decided that page level locking was the correct trade off between granularity an

To: Charles Hughes who wrote (8787)	1/15/1998 5:44:00 PM
From: Guy99	Respond to of 14631

Oops, At the time, it was decided that page level locking was the correct trade off between granularity and resource usage. When MSFT took over SQL Server they kludged in RLL for SAP, Sybase should have too. All of the above, IMO. Guy

To: Charles Hughes who wrote (8787)	1/15/1998 6:39:00 PM
From: SemiBull	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14631

Chaz and thread, After reading some of the postings from this thread, my wife (software engineer) had the following thoughts: First of all, with the advent of 64-bit technology, RDBMS' will be able to run in RAM. Furthermore, companies can distribute their databases across 4 servers. This is monumental. Second of all, with regards to MSFT, no one on the list is considering the S/W communities perspective. NO s/w engineers or managers for that matter, expect any bug-free s/w from MSFT with the first couple of releases. Especially in terms of RDBMS'. What company is going to want to store their mission-critical information on a buggy initial release? TIA for comments....SemiBull