> ["very, very offtopic"] > Ok. This comparition is just as useless as the other one, > because it's comparing oranges with apples (It's funny > anyway). I was just choosing an example in which you can see > the best of postgresql against 'not so nice' behavior of > mssql2000 (no service pack, it's my desktop system, I'll do > the same test later with SP4 and different isolation levels > and I'll check results).
There will be no difference in the service packs. SQL 2005 has "MVCC" (they call it something different, of course, but that's basicallyi what it is) > Furthermore, MSSQL2000 is 5 years > old now. Does anybody has the same cellular phone, or > computer? (I don't want to know :-) ). The big question is There is a big difference between your database and your cellphone. There are a lot of systems out there running very solidly on older products like MSSQL 7 (probably even some on 6.x), as well as Oracle 7,8 and 9... I'd say there is generally a huge difference in reliabilty in your cellphone hw/sw than there is in your db hw/sw. I have yet to see a cellphone that can run for a year without a reboot (or with a lot of brands, complete replacement). //Magnus ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
