Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
On 10/14/08, *Ask Bjørn Hansen* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
On Oct 13, 2008, at 10:55, Jim Starkey wrote:
You are right if you think about transaction context. The
thing is most web shops, almost all, run in autocommit
mode. This is the 80% case (if not more). Of course when
you run within the context of a transaction you have an
issue, I mentioned that in my original email, but the
majority case does not do this. They fire off seven
queries, get the results, and then build a page.
Gosh, Brian, that's a pretty good argument for an aggregating
interface. Of course then they would have a single
transaction and the results would even be consistent.
I think that's missing the point a little pushing the
transactions. :-) Not using transacions isn't just being lazy; in
many applications most queries can be done safely without
transactions. Spending any CPU cycles on them would just be wasted.
Not to mention disk I/O.
Yup, where getting the right answer doesn't matter, non-transactional
engines are the way to go. The historically oriented might point out
that databases were invented to give consistent answers in a volatile
environment, but that was on a parallel universe somewhere.
--
Jim Starkey
President, NimbusDB, Inc.
978 526-1376
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
