 Re: Informix beats Oracle
DA Morgan wrote:
> Fernando Nunes wrote:
>
>> In practice, I think this has the same results. Using this, you won't
>> block when trying to read a row that has a lock (not a shared one, but
>> an insert/update/delete lock). You will get whatever was there (or
>> wasn't...) before the operation holding the lock.
>
> This would be a major step forward for Informix if this is what it
> appears to be.
>
> Can anyone confirm the following statement is true?
>
> "Reads don't block writes and writes don't block reads and only
> committed rows are visible."
I can.
>
> And yes SQL Server finally got a measure of this with 2005 whereas
> Oracle has had it for decades.
>
> Thank you.
|