Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> It just worries me that the designers of this system fundamentally think 
> that transaction integrity is so unimportant that it's not even the 
> default, that's all.

Know something? The default is also to commit after every statement on 
most DBs too. So? :-)

Yes, MySql *started out* tremendously simplified. But it's like you're 
complaining about how DOS looses disk clusters if you don't close the 
file properly, while evaluating XP.

> That's only one way of implementing transactional integrity. (And, IMO, 
> not a very good way.)

Actually, I think there are a number of ways to do it, depending on the 
table. You can even use explicit locks to enforce at least the I of ACID 
on the non-transactional tables.

>> Whatever you do to enforce transactional integrity? It takes resources.
> Now that at least is a valid statement.

Yah. In my experience, it's about a 5:1 ratio. When I realized that, I 
changed most of my tables to non-transactional. There's nothing I'm 
running on the tables that isn't idempotent.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message