Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!cornell!batcomputer!pyramid!voder!cullsj!gupta
From: gupta@cullsj.UUCP (Yogesh Gupta)
Newsgroups: comp.databases
Subject: Re: Data vs Application oriented design
Message-ID: <182@cullsj.UUCP>
Date: 8 Jan 88 19:26:03 GMT
References: <12673@pyramid.pyramid.com> <69@coot.AUSTIN.LOCKHEED.COM> <89@pasteur.Berkeley.Edu>
Organization: Cullinet Software, San Jose, CA
Lines: 16
Keywords: relational,network,comparison
Summary: Performance impact of level 3 consistency.

In article <89@pasteur.Berkeley.Edu>, larry@postgres.uucp (Larry Rowe) writes:
> 
> 3. relational -vs- non-relational.
>    ...
> fourth, many times a performance problem is a locking problem not a storage
> or query processing problem. 

Yes!  As most pre-relational systems do NOT support level 3 consistency,
the lock management overhead within a transaction is less than that in a
relational system which supports level 3 consistency.  Also, the amount
of concurrency is higher which shows up in multi-user performance.  I think
that there is NO reason why a relational database system should perform
slower than a pre-relational system for the SAME functionality.
-- 
Yogesh Gupta			| If you think my company will let me
Cullinet Software, Inc.		| speak for them, you must be joking.