On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Ajit Deshpande wrote: > On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 08:27:28AM -0500, Chris Winters wrote: > > On Tue, 2002-02-26 at 22:41, Rob Nagler wrote: > > > Depends on what you mean by "need". If you need row-level locking or > > > a standby database, it's Oracle or DB2 afaik. > > > > I think this kind of begs the question :-) Do most apps *need* these > > features? It's the same kind of attitude I mentioned above: Oracle is > > the answer to every question. Even if you just have 200 MB and no more > > than 50 max concurrent users doing normal browse/create/update > > operations, and normal backup operations will be just fine. (And IIRC, I > > believe that Sybase ASE, Sybase ASA, Microsoft SQL Server, and > > PostgreSQL all have row-level locking or versions implementing the same > > concept.) > > MySQL with the new InnoDB type tables has row-level locking with full > transaction support as well..
More to the point, Oracle doesn't use row level locking, it uses MVCC, the same as PostgreSQL does. By far a more advanced model, IMHO. -- <!-- Matt --> <:->Get a smart net</:->
