"Ross J. Reedstrom" <reedstrm(at)wallace(dot)ece(dot)rice(dot)edu> writes:
>On Mon, May 22, 2000 at 03:46:39PM +0800, Michael Robinson wrote:
>> MySQL is extremely well suited for it: the data is essentially "read-only"
>> so transactions, locking, etc., are not an issue,
>
>People keep claiming that applications that are essentially "read-only"
>don't need transactions. I'll agree in the limit, that truly read only
>databases don't, but I think a lot of people might be surprised at how
>little writing you need before you get into trouble.
Very true. However, if you can guarantee that there is only ever one
writer (e.g., a batch process), and you don't mind the occasional dirty
read, you don't need any locking at all.
-Michael Robinson