Subject | Re[2]: [Firebird-general] History of Interbase's failure to make it to the big time. |
---|---|
Author | Dmitri Kouzmenko |
Post date | 2005-10-19T18:03:37Z |
Hello, Martijn!
Wednesday, October 19, 2005, 5:03:39 PM, you wrote:
Maybe, only Jinm can tell :-)
MT> or it got extended MVCC since v4.
what do you mean by v3 or v4?
MT> Although I thought it was around v7 ...
not sure. I know that moving from v7 to v8
extended database size up to 15-25% by
metadata versioning and record versions
(I know that versions stored in transacion log).
I have carefully read some local articles, and seems that
MS SQL 2005 versioning copied 95% of IB/FB versioning.
already? I'm not sure about their transaction support,
so versioning here does not mean so much. I'm wrong?
--
Dmitri Kouzmenko, www.ibase.ru, (095) 953-13-34
Wednesday, October 19, 2005, 5:03:39 PM, you wrote:
>> - InterBase have MGA since 1985MT> v1, correct?
Maybe, only Jinm can tell :-)
>> - Oracle have versioning (named as semi-verisioningMT> No earlier. Reading in the newsgroup, they say since v3 or v4
>> because it have some problems with very long snapshot
>> transactions) since version 8.0 (am I right?).
MT> or it got extended MVCC since v4.
what do you mean by v3 or v4?
MT> Although I thought it was around v7 ...
not sure. I know that moving from v7 to v8
extended database size up to 15-25% by
metadata versioning and record versions
(I know that versions stored in transacion log).
>> - MS SQL 2005 will have versioning same as in InterBase/Firebird.MT> Not entirely sure -- it has _something_ like MGA.
I have carefully read some local articles, and seems that
MS SQL 2005 versioning copied 95% of IB/FB versioning.
>> - MySQL will (? or already) have versioning ... don't knowMT> They have MVCC/MGA in its InnoDB storage system.
>> about it's implementation or limitations.
already? I'm not sure about their transaction support,
so versioning here does not mean so much. I'm wrong?
--
Dmitri Kouzmenko, www.ibase.ru, (095) 953-13-34