The following thread is relevant to this one. It provides a discussion in an ACID Transaction context, which MVCC does not have, and cannot do (MVCC is Anti-ACID; MVCC is Anti-Transaction).

> Batch Transaction

Note that the [III - Batch Transaction] described in the above thread is for simple OLTP systems, that already have proper ACID Transactions. Whereas the [Batch Transaction] defined in the link below is for coding the equivalent of CASCADE, which is an infantile, fantasy concept that is not permitted on commercial SQL platforms. Thius code provides the proper method to move the entire tree from OldKey to NewKey.

__ https://groups.google.com/g/comp.databases.theory/c/LSoYp9wrv0M

Cheers
Derek

Confirming, yet again, that the theoreticians who allege to be serving this field, are utterly clueless about OLTP/Transaction/ACID, that we have had for FORTY YEARS in commercial RDBMS SQL.

The following thread is relevant to this one. It provides a discussion in the full OLTP/Transaction/ACID context, which MVCC does not have, and cannot do (MV-non-CC is Anti-ACID; MV-non-CC is Anti-Transaction; MV-non-CC is Anti-OLTP ... the freaks use redefined definitions to fraudulently appear to provide fragments of ACID only, minus the full OLTP/Transaction/ACID context).

Daniel has started defining a template for OLTP/Transaction/ACID stored procs.

__ https://groups.google.com/g/comp.databases.theory/c/BNL-TwgMfPY

Cheers
Derek

Nicola

In the /Stored Proc for OLTP Transactions/ thread, you posed questions re "Serialisation" and "Schedules", which I found very odd:
- why on earth should a developer or a DBA be concerned about such things (internal operation of the server) ?
- a Schedule implies single-threaded operation (we have been fully multi-threaded since 1975, not to mention Sybase is massively so at all levels)

Could you please enlighten me,, in a few words. Using only the standard meanings of terms, as asserted (not any academic re-definitions).

I found this, it appears it is being taught at Berkeley, as “computer science” about “databases”. Why, for what purpose ???

https://dsf.berkeley.edu/dbcourse/lecs/22cc.pdf
Cheers
Derek

On 2021-08-22, Derek Ignatius Asirvadem <derek.asirvadem@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nicola
>
> In the /Stored Proc for OLTP Transactions/ thread, you posed questions
> re "Serialisation" and "Schedules", which I found very odd:

Apparently, we are using those terms with different meanings.

> - why on earth should a developer or a DBA be concerned about such
> things (internal operation of the server) ?

Since I am not sure what you mean exactly, I can only say that anyone
working with a DBMS at a professional level should be intimately
familiar with the implementation details of such DBMS.

> - a Schedule implies single-threaded operation (we have been fully
> multi-threaded since 1975, not to mention Sybase is massively so at
> all levels)

No idea what you mean, but it's certainly not what I mean by schedule.
But the use of my term is academic, hence irrelevant.

> I found this, it appears it is being taught at Berkeley, as “computer
> science” about “databases”. Why, for what purpose ???
>
> https://dsf.berkeley.edu/dbcourse/lecs/22cc.pdf

What does that add to the discussion? You have extensively argued about
the sad state of affairs of academia and of the rest of the world,
except for a handful of privileged ones. You don't need to reiterate
those arguments.

Nicola