4 ms·
I've seen several sql server shops with severe performance problems where the in-house DBAs had no clue what had hit them. Different DB engines deal with multi-
by Toshio 14y ago
I've seen several sql server shops with severe performance problems where the in-house DBAs had no clue what had hit them. Different DB engines deal with multi-version read consistency in different ways, Postgres does a defensive copy-on-update, Oracle falls back on rollback segments; unfortunately sql server escalates page locks to table-wide locks, and then performance goes downhill from there.
If your friends don't experience any problems, I would venture to guess they must be running small databases, or databases where the workload is 90% reads 10% writes.
- kogir 14y agoHaving actually deployed and used SQL Server extensively, I know how it handles "multi-version read consistency": As I tell it to: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms173763.aspx http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms173763.aspx In addition to setting a database level default, you can even have it behave differently per connection. Snapshot isolation will never lock, period. SQL Server is actually quite capable, and has the fantastic tooling that cheaper alternatives like PostgreSQL lack.
- Toshio 14y agoCare to say how big your database is, and what your workload looks like (reads vs. writes)?