O grupo no qual você está postando é um grupo da Usenet. As mensagens postadas neste grupo farão com que o seu e-mail fique visível para qualquer pessoa na internet.
"The next release, code-named Cheetah, is due to beta this spring and will feature *record-level locking*, technology carried over from the latest release of IBM DB2, said Arvind Krishna, vice president of database servers for IBM Software's Information Management Group, Somers, N.Y."
I think I speak for us all when I say: "What the *fuck*???"
First of all, it's row-level locking, as any good relational database user knows. And secondly, IDS has had row-level locking since ... help me out here... the early 90's?
I think Arvind Krishna needs to find himself a nice rusty spade, I do. :o(
-- Bye now, Obnoxio
"... no bill is required as no value was provided." -- Christine Normile
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by OpenProtect(http://www.openprotect.com), and is believed to be clean.
> "The next release, code-named Cheetah, is due to beta this spring and will > feature *record-level locking*, technology carried over from the latest > release of IBM DB2, said Arvind Krishna, vice president of database > servers for IBM Software's Information Management Group, Somers, N.Y."
> I think I speak for us all when I say: "What the *fuck*???"
> First of all, it's row-level locking, as any good relational database user > knows. And secondly, IDS has had row-level locking since ... help me out > here... the early 90's?
> I think Arvind Krishna needs to find himself a nice rusty spade, I do. :o(
> -- > Bye now, > Obnoxio
> "... no bill is required as no value was provided." > -- Christine Normile
> -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by OpenProtect(http://www.openprotect.com), and is > believed to be clean.
the article does go on to say
"The current IDS Version 10 Release Change 5-IDS uses its own release terminology-offers row-level and column-level locking."
which suggests there is a difference between record and row level locking
Perhaps record locking is a type of application support.... Such as if I were to select a "record" of data from 2 different tables.... Then the record lock is held with same ID on both tables?
Tough to see how record and our long standing row lock are different.
[mailto:informix-list-boun...@iiug.org] On Behalf Of scottishpoet Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 8:29 AM To: informix-l...@iiug.org Subject: Re: Let me be the first
> "The next release, code-named Cheetah, is due to beta this spring and will > feature *record-level locking*, technology carried over from the latest > release of IBM DB2, said Arvind Krishna, vice president of database > servers for IBM Software's Information Management Group, Somers, N.Y."
> I think I speak for us all when I say: "What the *fuck*???"
> First of all, it's row-level locking, as any good relational database user > knows. And secondly, IDS has had row-level locking since ... help me out > here... the early 90's?
> I think Arvind Krishna needs to find himself a nice rusty spade, I do. :o(
> -- > Bye now, > Obnoxio
> "... no bill is required as no value was provided." > -- Christine Normile
> -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by OpenProtect(http://www.openprotect.com), and is > believed to be clean.
the article does go on to say
"The current IDS Version 10 Release Change 5-IDS uses its own release terminology-offers row-level and column-level locking."
which suggests there is a difference between record and row level locking
_______________________________________________ Informix-list mailing list Informix-l...@iiug.org http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list ============================================================ The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reproduction, dissemination or distribution of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you. Tellabs ============================================================
> "The current IDS Version 10 Release Change 5-IDS uses its own release > terminology-offers row-level and column-level locking."
> which suggests there is a difference between record and row level > locking
The difference is that a relational database has no concept of a record. And come on, how long has IDS had row-level locking? Since before some Other databases, wasn't it?
-- Bye now, Obnoxio
"... no bill is required as no value was provided." -- Christine Normile
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by OpenProtect(http://www.openprotect.com), and is believed to be clean.
> > "The current IDS Version 10 Release Change 5-IDS uses its own release > > terminology-offers row-level and column-level locking."
> > which suggests there is a difference between record and row level > > locking
> The difference is that a relational database has no concept of a record. > And come on, how long has IDS had row-level locking? Since before some > Other databases, wasn't it?
> -- > Bye now, > Obnoxio
> "... no bill is required as no value was provided." > -- Christine Normile
> -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by OpenProtect(http://www.openprotect.com), and is > believed to be clean.
> "The next release, code-named Cheetah, is due to beta this spring and will > feature *record-level locking*, technology carried over from the latest > release of IBM DB2, said Arvind Krishna, vice president of database > servers for IBM Software's Information Management Group, Somers, N.Y."
> I think I speak for us all when I say: "What the *fuck*???"
> First of all, it's row-level locking, as any good relational database user > knows. And secondly, IDS has had row-level locking since ... help me out > here... the early 90's?
Informix row-level locking makes me mad: - locks row for reading from read_commited transaction - locks the same way previous and next record in index
This makes Informix quite unuseable for OLTP in comibination with batch processing (the same time).
Was this piece by CRN (http://www.crn.com/sections/software/ software.jhtml?articleId=193004835) supposed to discuss the optimistic concurrency isolation currently under development? Of course, that would not explain the reference to DB2 since they do not support optimistic concurrency.
If so, it might have made some interesting reading. As written, it is of little value since record-level (or row-level) locking has been available in IDS for over a decade.
Christine On Sep 25, 2006, at 8:43 AM, Sebastian, Norma J. wrote:
> Perhaps record locking is a type of application support.... > Such as if I were to select a "record" of data from 2 different > tables.... > Then the record lock is held with same ID on both tables?
> Tough to see how record and our long standing row lock are different.
> Ideas?
> Norma Jean
> -----Original Message----- > From: informix-list-boun...@iiug.org > [mailto:informix-list-boun...@iiug.org] On Behalf Of scottishpoet > Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 8:29 AM > To: informix-l...@iiug.org > Subject: Re: Let me be the first
>> "The next release, code-named Cheetah, is due to beta this spring and > will >> feature *record-level locking*, technology carried over from the > latest >> release of IBM DB2, said Arvind Krishna, vice president of database >> servers for IBM Software's Information Management Group, Somers, >> N.Y."
>> I think I speak for us all when I say: "What the *fuck*???"
>> First of all, it's row-level locking, as any good relational database > user >> knows. And secondly, IDS has had row-level locking since ... help me > out >> here... the early 90's?
>> I think Arvind Krishna needs to find himself a nice rusty spade, I >> do. > :o(
>> -- >> Bye now, >> Obnoxio
>> "... no bill is required as no value was provided." >> -- Christine Normile
>> -- >> This message has been scanned for viruses and >> dangerous content by OpenProtect(http://www.openprotect.com), and is >> believed to be clean.
> the article does go on to say
> "The current IDS Version 10 Release Change 5-IDS uses its own release > terminology-offers row-level and column-level locking."
> which suggests there is a difference between record and row level > locking
> _______________________________________________ > Informix-list mailing list > Informix-l...@iiug.org > http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list > ============================================================ > The information contained in this message may be privileged > and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader > of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee > or agent responsible for delivering this message to the > intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reproduction, > dissemination or distribution of this communication is strictly > prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, > please notify us immediately by replying to the message and > deleting it from your computer. Thank you. Tellabs > ============================================================ > _______________________________________________ > Informix-list mailing list > Informix-l...@iiug.org > http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list
> "The next release, code-named Cheetah, is due to beta this spring and will > feature *record-level locking*, technology carried over from the latest > release of IBM DB2, said Arvind Krishna, vice president of database > servers for IBM Software's Information Management Group, Somers, N.Y."
There is a bit of mis-communication with this. What we are doing is implementing a form of row versioning which will enable a select to view the currently committed row rather than blocking on the row when it is in the process of being updated and is locked.
There's quite a few other really cool things that are being put into Cheetah. Can't talk about them just yet, but will be doing so at the conference in Aniheim.
> I think I speak for us all when I say: "What the *fuck*???"
> First of all, it's row-level locking, as any good relational database user > knows. And secondly, IDS has had row-level locking since ... help me out > here... the early 90's?
> I think Arvind Krishna needs to find himself a nice rusty spade, I do. :o(
>> "The next release, code-named Cheetah, is due to beta this spring and >> will >> feature *record-level locking*, technology carried over from the latest >> release of IBM DB2, said Arvind Krishna, vice president of database >> servers for IBM Software's Information Management Group, Somers, N.Y."
> There is a bit of mis-communication with this. What we are doing is > implementing a form of row versioning which will enable a select to view > the currently committed row rather than blocking on the row when it is > in the process of being updated and is locked.
> There's quite a few other really cool things that are being put into > Cheetah. Can't talk about them just yet, but will be doing so at the > conference in Aniheim.
>> I think I speak for us all when I say: "What the *fuck*???"
>> First of all, it's row-level locking, as any good relational database >> user >> knows. And secondly, IDS has had row-level locking since ... help me out >> here... the early 90's?
>> I think Arvind Krishna needs to find himself a nice rusty spade, I do. >> :o(
> Curious that this poorly written article provides an "announcement", so > where is > the IBM presence for this on the IBM website or other trade rags?
What Arvind discussed was a prelude to the IOD conference in Aniheim coming up in a few weeks. Other things will be described in the conference, and in several of the regional IIUG mini-conferences coming up. I wouldn't expect to see a whole lot of mention about the other new functionality until after then.
>>> "The next release, code-named Cheetah, is due to beta this spring and >>> will >>> feature *record-level locking*, technology carried over from the latest >>> release of IBM DB2, said Arvind Krishna, vice president of database >>> servers for IBM Software's Information Management Group, Somers, N.Y."
>> There is a bit of mis-communication with this. What we are doing is >> implementing a form of row versioning which will enable a select to >> view the currently committed row rather than blocking on the row when >> it is in the process of being updated and is locked.
>> There's quite a few other really cool things that are being put into >> Cheetah. Can't talk about them just yet, but will be doing so at the >> conference in Aniheim.
This is apparently one of the first articles ( in years btw ) to even talk about Informix and new technology. It was poorly written, and so far a casual sweep to other news sites turns up nothing. If an article has come out on CRN, where else will we expect to see more news? These kinds of articles are important, they get saved, printed, and referenced to, in building street credibility about the product.
And, as usual, a lot of people will not be in Anaheim, especially new customers outside the 20,000 customers mentioned in the article and the folks from Walmart who have apparently been responsible for keeping the product alive. So any articles that are written are incredibly important in their scope and content.
>> Curious that this poorly written article provides an "announcement", >> so where is >> the IBM presence for this on the IBM website or other trade rags?
> What Arvind discussed was a prelude to the IOD conference in Aniheim > coming up in a few weeks. Other things will be described in the > conference, and in several of the regional IIUG mini-conferences coming > up. I wouldn't expect to see a whole lot of mention about the other new > functionality until after then.
>>>> "The next release, code-named Cheetah, is due to beta this spring >>>> and will >>>> feature *record-level locking*, technology carried over from the latest >>>> release of IBM DB2, said Arvind Krishna, vice president of database >>>> servers for IBM Software's Information Management Group, Somers, N.Y."
>>> There is a bit of mis-communication with this. What we are doing is >>> implementing a form of row versioning which will enable a select to >>> view the currently committed row rather than blocking on the row >>> when it is in the process of being updated and is locked.
>>> There's quite a few other really cool things that are being put into >>> Cheetah. Can't talk about them just yet, but will be doing so at the >>> conference in Aniheim.
> This is apparently one of the first articles ( in years btw ) to even > talk about Informix and new technology. It was poorly written, and > so far a casual sweep to other news sites turns up nothing. If an > article has come out on CRN, where else will we expect to see more > news? These kinds of articles are important, they get saved, printed, > and referenced to, in building street credibility about the product.
> And, as usual, a lot of people will not be in Anaheim, especially new > customers outside the 20,000 customers mentioned in the article and the > folks from Walmart who have apparently been responsible for keeping > the product alive. So any articles that are written are incredibly > important in their scope and content.
And I would expect more to come out over the next few weeks, especially after the conference.
>>> Curious that this poorly written article provides an "announcement", >>> so where is >>> the IBM presence for this on the IBM website or other trade rags?
>> What Arvind discussed was a prelude to the IOD conference in Aniheim >> coming up in a few weeks. Other things will be described in the >> conference, and in several of the regional IIUG mini-conferences >> coming up. I wouldn't expect to see a whole lot of mention about the >> other new functionality until after then.
>>>>> "The next release, code-named Cheetah, is due to beta this spring >>>>> and will >>>>> feature *record-level locking*, technology carried over from the >>>>> latest >>>>> release of IBM DB2, said Arvind Krishna, vice president of database >>>>> servers for IBM Software's Information Management Group, Somers, N.Y."
>>>> There is a bit of mis-communication with this. What we are doing is >>>> implementing a form of row versioning which will enable a select to >>>> view the currently committed row rather than blocking on the row >>>> when it is in the process of being updated and is locked.
>>>> There's quite a few other really cool things that are being put into >>>> Cheetah. Can't talk about them just yet, but will be doing so at >>>> the conference in Aniheim.
>> This makes Informix quite unuseable for OLTP in comibination with batch >> processing (the same time).
> Shit, you mean I've been doing it wrong for 20 years?
And how did you solve the problem I'am facing now: - I have two tables - I use read_commited transactions - User one runs batch process upon them that locks some rows in them for reading (because of locking next and previous record in indexes it also lock some other records) - User two wants to read his records which are locked by user one and must wait until batch process started by user one finishes
This works smoothly on Oracle, DB2 (PC and OS400), PostgreSQL, MS SQL, Firebird, Interbase,... where is not so stupid locking implemented....
You don't use transactions? (eg. dirty_reads only).
OK, so why was CRN chosen as the mystical, magical trade rag to post this to?
As if they really get any attention beyond VARs reading them, if at all.
There needs to be a major magazine, preferably one like eWeek, or ComputerWorld that this appears in. I'm hoping against hope that if it indeed does show up in one of these that the writing will be better, and the new features more clearly articulated, because CRN gives anyone the idea that Informix just now got row-level locking. In most circles record-level and row-level are used interchangeably.
Even Sybase gets more news these days. Head over to ComputerWorld or eWeek and you'll see. And Sybase was the one that didn't have row-level locking until around 2000 or so. Now Informix has to fight yet another feature perception that wasn't there!
Madison Pruet wrote: > Double Echo wrote: >> You missed my point.
>> This is apparently one of the first articles ( in years btw ) to even >> talk about Informix and new technology. It was poorly written, and >> so far a casual sweep to other news sites turns up nothing. If an >> article has come out on CRN, where else will we expect to see more >> news? These kinds of articles are important, they get saved, printed, >> and referenced to, in building street credibility about the product.
>> And, as usual, a lot of people will not be in Anaheim, especially new >> customers outside the 20,000 customers mentioned in the article and >> the folks from Walmart who have apparently been responsible for keeping >> the product alive. So any articles that are written are incredibly >> important in their scope and content.
> And I would expect more to come out over the next few weeks, especially > after the conference.
> M.P.
>> Madison Pruet wrote: >>> Double Echo wrote:
>>>> Curious that this poorly written article provides an "announcement", >>>> so where is >>>> the IBM presence for this on the IBM website or other trade rags?
>>> What Arvind discussed was a prelude to the IOD conference in Aniheim >>> coming up in a few weeks. Other things will be described in the >>> conference, and in several of the regional IIUG mini-conferences >>> coming up. I wouldn't expect to see a whole lot of mention about the >>> other new functionality until after then.
>>>>>> "The next release, code-named Cheetah, is due to beta this spring >>>>>> and will >>>>>> feature *record-level locking*, technology carried over from the >>>>>> latest >>>>>> release of IBM DB2, said Arvind Krishna, vice president of database >>>>>> servers for IBM Software's Information Management Group, Somers, >>>>>> N.Y."
>>>>> There is a bit of mis-communication with this. What we are doing >>>>> is implementing a form of row versioning which will enable a select >>>>> to view the currently committed row rather than blocking on the >>>>> row when it is in the process of being updated and is locked.
>>>>> There's quite a few other really cool things that are being put >>>>> into Cheetah. Can't talk about them just yet, but will be doing so >>>>> at the conference in Aniheim.
|
