Subject | Re: [firebird-support] Re: firebird deadlock vs isc_tpb_wait/etc. issue, or ? |
---|---|
Author | Ann W. Harrison |
Post date | 2006-10-18T17:38:55Z |
learntrade wrote:
a lot of load, which is when you need the cheap solution.
case, his judgment is warped by the fact that he's built a new
high-throughput relational data manager. Firebird does very well
in comparisons against its contemporaries. And, though I wouldn't
want to bet on a race between it and Jim's new engine, the latter
comes with MySQL issues - GPL, no embedded V5.x yet, etc.
Regards,
Ann
Full disclosure. Jim's my husband. I work for MySQL.
> 1)Aren't firebird <v2 generators 32-bit?No. Firebird has always had 64 bit generators.
>As you point out, your solution won't be a problem unless there's
> 5)I can simply code for the deadlock exception and retry.
a lot of load, which is when you need the cheap solution.
> throughput/loads supported. (In my research efforts prior to originalJim is a dear boy, and has lots of good ideas. However, in this
> post for this issue, I saw a post by Jim Starkey (?sp) [architecture
> list?] that suggested transaction load support in firebird may
> currently be a concern, at least in comparison to the "big guys.")
case, his judgment is warped by the fact that he's built a new
high-throughput relational data manager. Firebird does very well
in comparisons against its contemporaries. And, though I wouldn't
want to bet on a race between it and Jim's new engine, the latter
comes with MySQL issues - GPL, no embedded V5.x yet, etc.
Regards,
Ann
Full disclosure. Jim's my husband. I work for MySQL.