Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v7 wrote:
>> Well, my application will probably only be about 5 tables, and it's 
>> simple enough that speed is unlikely to be a problem. So why make 
>> things more difficult than necessary?
> 
> Then use the innodb table type, and be happy.

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.

>> Why do you need to lock things to enforce transactional integrity? 
>> Locking is only one (suboptimal) way to solve the problem.
> 
> The RDBMS locks things to enforce transactional integrity. I don't do it 
> explicitly. I merely start a transaction, and the appropriate rows get 
> locked.

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

> Whatever you do to enforce transactional integrity? It takes resources.

Now that at least is a valid statement.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message