Given that the architecture imposes no costs without the lower isolation
level, there probably are no good reasons to use (or implement it). My
lack of understanding of the architecture was key here.....

Thanks.

Jim Starkey wrote:

> At 09:10 PM 12/27/00 -0500, Andy Lewis wrote:
>
>> I supose the objectives of the project should really control the
>> criteria for adding features - my opinions may not be well aligned with
>> that :)
>>
>> Let me preface this by stating that I don't know the architecture of IB
>> well enough yet to know if the lower isolation levels actually impact
>> performance significantly or not, but it does on most databases.
>
>
> That's an important point. Interbase was designed so the cost of
> transaction control was negligable. The multi-version crud happens
> in lieu of a transacation log, and is essentially free. The minor
> cost for read-only transactions chasing down the odd old version
> isn't worth losing sleep over. Getting dumb isn't going to speed
> anything up.
>
>> How much transaction control do you need on 10,000 SELECT
>> statements to keep them from causing problems with each other?
>
>
> None, which is what Firebird does. Unlike the other guys,
> Firebird doesn't have the equivalent of read locks.
>
> There is
>
>> a point where a transaction simply doens't get any less expensive, and
>> as volume goes up, every little bit counts.
>>
>
>
>
> Jim Starkey
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> IB-Architect-unsubscribe@onelist.com
>
>