Nicola

> On Sunday, 8 August 2021 at 23:52:04 UTC+10, Nicola wrote:

Dealing with the rest of that post.

> > On 2021-08-06, Derek Ignatius Asirvadem wrote:

> > 1. Read the Transact-SQL Users Guide
> > ____ at least ch 20 Transactions: Maintaining Data Consistency and Recovery
> >
> > 2. Then read my guide to the Lock Manager
> > ____ https://www.softwaregems.com.au/Documents/Article/Sybase%20Lock%20Manager/Sybase%20Lock%20Manager.pdf
> > All my Sybase docs are condensed, intended for Sybase DBAs. I have
> > just updated it, and added a bit of detail, imp[roved the clarity, so
> > as to be relevant for novices.
> >
> > Remember, this is a serious Lock Manager, not comparable to your 2PL
> > filth, which has to be asserted because you guys position commercial
> > SQL Platform Lock Managers as your "2PL" filth, and insist that we
> > have your insane problems. It is so mature and secure, so brilliant
> > in architecture, that it has not changed since 1984. Extended, yes
> > (eg. to handle new Lock Types to support SAP files, eg. add row locks;
> > etc), but changed, no. So read these docs with a fresh mind, to not
> > take your academic baggage with you.
>
> I have read a couple of documents (the T-SQL guide and the Locking and
> Concurrency Control manual).

You are best advised to read the T-SQL UG *FIRST*, because it is an explanation, the P&T series is reference, not explanation, so read that *SECOND*, after you understand the explanation. Otherwise you will continue finding “faults” and “problems” where there are none, which is your documented occupation.

> My takeaways:
>
> - yes, it is a serious lock manager (I did not expect anything less from
> a high-end commercial product).
>
> - I did not find any concept that you would not find in a database
> systems' textbook (and no, the Alice's book is not such a textbook).

You dishonestly fail to mention the fact that the textbooks were written AFTER Britton-Lee, AFTER Sybase. Your point is null.

The other ramshackle book that you linked is no better, no worse, than the Alice book. They fail totally in teaching science, they succeed well in teaching how to suck a pigs rectum, which is professed to be “science”. Every link you propose, presented as “knowledge”, has proved to to be sows milk on top of a fragment of science.

> - Call it what you like, but ASE/Sybase uses what is known as "rigorous
> 2PL" to implement repeatable read and serializable:
>
> https://help.sap.com/viewer/a08646e0736e4b4b968705079db4c5f5/16.0.3.7/en-US/a8ea3fd4bc2b1014b6569e800f6bba42.html.

There is no mention of a “2PL” or “rigorous 2PL” in that.

I don’t call it “2PL”, I detest calling something what it is not, that is fraudulent, anti-science. The term is something the academics created, it sort of explains their two phases (they do have a hexpansion phase and a contradiction phase). Calling their filth, as implemented to provide some concurrency control in the MV-non-CC herd of programs, 2PL, is correct.

Calling the Sybase; DB2; MS, Lock Manger “2PL” is false. It will prevent you from finding out what a real Lock Manager is. Further, as explained in detail earlier in this thread, and again in the Transaction Sanity doc, it is a Straw Man, erected by anti-scientists, to demean and discredit something they (as evidenced) cannot comprehend.

The point I made, which stands unaffected, is that it is idiotic for anyone to call something what it is not. Repeating, it is the anti-science academics that say that commercial SQL Platforms are “2PL”
____ WHICH IS FALSE
and as such, as a false “2PL”, that we somehow have the same “problems” that their idiotic 2PL lock managers have. It is a Straw Man.

You too have done that, just look at your questions. You are still doing it. You are the one doing this “calling it what you like” stupidity. You can stop making a fool of yourself any time you like.

If you genuinely understand what you are saying NOW, you would realise that your questions pertain to the poor implementation, your 2PL, and not to the real 1PL lock managers.

> - Call it what you like, but ASE/Sybase uses what is known as "rigorous
> 2PL" to implement repeatable read and serializable:

Go on, name the two phases in the Sybase Lock Manager.

If you hide behind “what is known as”, then take responsibility for the “what is known as”, because it is you asylum screechers that have written the “literature” such that “what is known as” is what is known as.

I just do not play your stupid game of calling things what they are not.

> "Applying exclusive locks [...] until the end of the transaction.
> Applying shared locks [...] until the end of the transaction".
> Textbook definition of rigorous 2PL.

Except that you are fraudulent in applying that to a non-2PL server.
And that the textbook was written after Sybase.

What you have is a fat hairy sow, with a penchant for academics. Sybase is a horse. You say that a pig is the same as a horse. I say, pig poop. You say a macho hairy boar can do anything a horse can do, especially when it is rigorous. I say, fiddlesticks, fresh warm pig poop, straight from the sow. More like rigor mortis.

> - It uses index-locking to prevent phantoms. Again, no surprise and
> pretty much standard textbook material.

Except for the fact that Sybase came first, and the texbooks came second, therefore the inference is false.

> - There is a section dealing exactly with the question I have posed:
> "Locking for Select Queries at Isolation Level 1"
>
> https://help.sap.com/viewer/a08646e0736e4b4b968705079db4c5f5/16.0.3.7/en-US/a8eb04a3bc2b1014bef8884d8400b0ab.html

I don’t see how that has anything to do with your questions, which were your particular speculations about how low level operations could be, should be, wannabe, please be, problematic. The usual insanity of imposing the problems of the insane, onto the sane. It is such an obsession with you, that even after it is pointed out, you cannot stop.

I tried to explain the operation of the Sybase 1PL Lock Manager, and failed.. Daniel did a better job, and it appeared that you accepted it. Probably not. Now you have found a relevant page is the manual. Excellent.

The section is simply a definition re how a particular sequence of commands works. Not about “exactly your question”.

> Btw, with a mention of how that affects joins.

Yes, of course. So what. Even our joins are superior to the way you guys speculate about joins forty years after we had them.

The Sybase manuals are not as good as they were before the acquisition by SAP. If I were to give that definition, I would include the fact that it intent-locks UP the [SELECTed] tree as well, ie. the PK page/row in the parent table that is referenced by the FK in the child table which is named in the SELECT command. But hey, that is only a reference manual. And you would not understand it anyway, because it is relevant only to Relational databases.

Do you know wtf the difference is, between APL and DPL/DRL lock schemes (tables). Sure, you can state the words, but do you know the RELEVANCE. No. Do you know why there is a difference at the level described in that section ? No. But somehow, you say, it applies to your question, which was before you read that manual.

> That, plus this (which
> is about SQL Server and has some inaccuracies, but overall I think it
> is relevant):
>
> https://sqlperformance.com/2014/04/t-sql-queries/the-read-committed-isolation-level
>
> makes me conclude that in general you do not have statement-level
> consistency at read committed in SQL Server or ASE.

God help me.

Destroyed, in my previous post. In sum:

1. It is a sign of desperation, when an academic cites a non-academic blog post. Usually it is the other way around.
2. It is stupid to expect a COUNT on a large active table in an online shared database, to be accurate in reference to any fixed notion, particularly when the fixed notion does not exist, has never existed. Humans who have not been indoctrinated into schizophrenia are not that stupid.
3. It is Oedipus stupid to expect such a COUNT at READ COMMITTED to be executed as REPEATABLE READ, when the manual clearly states that you can obtain such a COUNT at REPEATABLE READ or SERIALIZABLE.
3. Last but not least, anyone with actual experience on a genuine SQL Platform can obtain such a meaningless but accurate count without having to plod through each and every page in the table, SQL-Standard-wise. A true instantaneous COUNT, and a true point in time.

----

> ASE is a fine implementation (*), based on concepts that have been very
> well known in the academic community for a long time

Lies, more filthy lies. “Based on” is false. The father is not based on the son.

The historical evidenced facts are:
___ Britton-Lee & Sybase
___ Lock Manager with 66 lock types (at 15.7, even more in 16, without changing the Lock Manager)
__ academia pushed the Stonefreaker MV-non-CC as “MVCC”. It never worked in Ingres, it has not worked in PigPoopGres. It never will. They added their 2PL on top on their MV-non-CC, to get it to work at all. It still doesn’t work.
__ They only know their 2PL.
__ Sybase, DB2, and MS do not have 2PL
__ But they, and you here, falsely re-frame a Lock Manager as your hysterically stupid 2PL.

On 2021-08-11, Derek Ignatius Asirvadem <derek.asirvadem@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Given your detailed question, AND the example you have cited, at what
>> > point in time, do you suggest that the COUNT() would be correct
>> > ? I am not asking for a long answer here, just clarifying you query.
>> > A few words would be enough.
>
>> If transaction T1 is scanning a table to count its rows, and
>> concurrently transaction T2 removes one row and adds two, the only
>> values T1 should be able to compute are N (the number of rows in the
>> table before the T1 and T2 starts executing) and N+1. That is because
>> there are two possible serial executions:
>
> False. We are not serialised.
>
> We are discussing READ COMMITTED,

Ok, I have misunderstood your question. The above is a very informally
stated definition of correctness of a schedule (i.e., serializability).

So, if you ask at what point in time a result of a query run at READ
COMMITTED is correct, the answer is: in general, never. Note that this
answer doesn't rule out situations in which you can guarantee a correct
result even at that level.

>> 1. [S1] starts scanning the table, counting the rows, oblivious to
>> other activity, by virtue that it declaratively runs at READ
>> COMMITTED.
>> 2. T2 executes and commits;
>> 3. [S1] keeps scanning the table, without regard to other activity
>
> Which somehow is “incorrect” to you.

Yes, according to the definition of "correctness" (which you affirm to
reject) as equivalence to a serial schedule.

Sorry, what is the definition of "correctness" according to the
Standards?

>> Count() would return the correct result if and only if the returned
>> value is among the values that some serial execution of the same set of
>> committed transactions would have returned.

> I reject that as a definition, Sybase; DB2; MS rejects that as well.

Then, again, please provide a definition of "correctness". Because you
want to be confident that your queries produce "correct" results, don't
you?

Since anything can happen concurrently during the execution of a query
at READ COMMITTED, how can you tell apart the result of a query
returning an integer from

select cast(rand() * 1000000) as int)

?

> Wherein COUNT at READ COMMITTED works perfectly.

Ok if you are referring to other ways of counting. But if you mean that
counting by scanning the table at READ COMMITTED works perfectly, please
elaborate on what "works perfectly" means.

> But there is an important second point: anyone who has even pedestrian
> knowledge of SQL on a genuine SQL Platform, would know that [separate
> to the count changing constantly because the table is active], that
> that is not a “problem”, that that is not the way to obtain a COUNT on
> a large table.

Sure. But it still illustrates the point, which is about the kind of
issues you may run into when running queries at READ COMMITTED. It is
not suggesting that you *should* run those queries at READ COMMITTED.
Counting was not the best example; but you can replace the query with
some other computation.

Nicola

Nicola

> On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 18:52:19 UTC+10, Nicola wrote:
> > On 2021-08-11, Derek Ignatius Asirvadem wrote:
> >> > Given your detailed question, AND the example you have cited, at what
> >> > point in time, do you suggest that the COUNT() would be correct
> >> > ? I am not asking for a long answer here, just clarifying you query.
> >> > A few words would be enough.
> >
> >> If transaction T1 is scanning a table to count its rows, and
> >> concurrently transaction T2 removes one row and adds two, the only
> >> values T1 should be able to compute are N (the number of rows in the
> >> table before the T1 and T2 starts executing) and N+1. That is because
> >> there are two possible serial executions:
> >
> > False. We are not serialised.
> >
> > We are discussing READ COMMITTED,

> Ok, I have misunderstood your question.

Um, I did not have a question. The question was yours. I was answering it.. In your question, you raised some quaint notions, that we do not have [are not necessary in] the real world, that we have survived very nicely without, for forty years. I merely asked for clarification re one of those precious notions, which I needed, to qualify your question, in order to answer it..

> The above is a very informally
> stated definition of correctness of a schedule (i.e., serializability).

Yet another precious notion that exists only in fantasy land, not in reality, that we have done without, for forty years. And please note, I am not asking for a definition of that particular insanity, loose or tight, dressed up in a tuxedo or a clown suit.

> So, if you ask at what point in time a result of a query run at READ
> COMMITTED is correct, the answer is: in general, never.

Good (for you)

And therein the notion of “correct” and “point in time”, were yours, not mine. It is all about your question, which is so loose an floppy, and contains three stupid notions, that I was trying to answer, in your context, without destroying the silly notions. Don’t put it back on me. This item did not start with me asking you what is correct, it started with you saying that something in the real world is NOT “correct”, according to your fantasy of “correct”.

You are still not getting it. I have explained, in detail, how you are questioning reality, from an insane set of notions that exist only in fantasy (sure, collective fantasy, established and made “real” by hundreds of academic papers that engage in fantasy). Therefore very “real” to you. But to those of us who stand on the hard ground of reality, they remain the notions of drooling idiots in the asylum.

> Note that this
> answer doesn't rule out situations in which you can guarantee a correct
> result even at that level.

> >> 1. [S1] starts scanning the table, counting the rows, oblivious to
> >> other activity, by virtue that it declaratively runs at READ
> >> COMMITTED.
> >> 2. T2 executes and commits;
> >> 3. [S1] keeps scanning the table, without regard to other activity
> >
> > Which somehow is “incorrect” to you.
>
> Yes, according to the definition of "correctness" (which you affirm to
> reject) as equivalence to a serial schedule.

(I don’t understand what “affirm to reject” means, so my answer excludes that element. It sounds like each cancels the other.)

No, no, no. The “incorrect” is in quotation marks, meaning that it is incorrect according to your quaint notion of “correct”, AND by inference, that it is not incorrect otherwise.

So, [1][2][3] above is perfectly correct in the real world, where people are not in denial of the fact that the database is an online shared resource, that is constantly changing.

It is only “incorrect” where the person denies the real world, and concocts a hysterical notion of “correct:” where in he can observe the real world as “incorrect”.

> Sorry, what is the definition of "correctness" according to the
> Standards?

Again, the notion of “correct” is yours. We couldn’t care less about it.

Again, same as the academics that propose that the /Relational Model/ is somehow lacking because it does not define database design or how to tie your shoelaces, it is stupid to expect the Standard (which defines only the standard) to define anything but the standard. But academics do that all the time, as you do here. It is no less stupid. Perhaps you are unaware that we put men on the moon in 1969, and did so with mainframes and 8-bit minicomputers, that we have had real, fully ACID compliant DBMS since the early 1960’s, long before SQL. When SQL was released by IBM, we did not need the SQL Standard to define what correct operation in a database server is, or how to count rows. We did not find the SQL Standard lacking because it failed to define how to tie our shoelaces using an UPDATE command.

Again, as defined by the Mental Health Act, the insane cannot be responsible, so they impose the responsibility for their impotence, onto others.

It is not the business or the responsibility of the Standard to define what is correct in a particular database server, especially when they did not define what a database server is.

You are demonstrating SIX levels of INSANITY (stupid) here, which I destroy using Logic alone (science).
__ First, you concoct a stupid notion for “correct” that does not exist in reality (insane act).
__ Second, you apply it to reality and find reality “incorrect” (insane act). No one cares.
__ Third, when it fails to impress humans, you can’t give a definition (the definitions you do give fail, because it does not reference the reality that it is applied to).
__ Fourth, you can’t take responsibility for your own stupid notion (definition of insanity).
__ Fifth, you try to impose that responsibility for definition of your stupid undefined notion onto anyone who does not accept your stupid undefined notion (insanity squared).
__ Sixth, when that fails you say the Standard that does not define anything except the Standard, is somehow wrong for not defining something that is not in the Standard (ROTFLMAO insanity).

I do not use the terms such as /insanity/ lightly. Nor do I make declarations without evidence: you always provide evidence to support my declarations.

Hint: I can prove, with any good example of a reasonably complex query, and a stated set of circumstances, that the result obtained in Sybase is correct, AND that the result of the same query in Oracle is incorrect. But that gets into the operation of the server, and the expectation of the person writing the query. And the engagement itself changes that [prior understanding of correct] in the Oracle query writer’s min. If you are looking at my posts on TTM from eleven years ago, I did that three times, complete with examples and proofs, with people who were honestly trying to understand. (I did that dozens of times with Darwen and the slaves but due to their dishonesty, they abandoned the exercise so as to deprive me (science) of a resolution.)

Hint: Most people who have experience on both can categorically state that MySQL operates correctly, and that PoopDePooGres does not. They do not need /correct/ defined for them.

It is stupefying, idiotic, insane, to define “correct” as an abstraction without reference to reality, and then try to apply it to reality, but academics love abstraction with no relation to reality, it is the foundation for their fantasies. This is the core principle that caused the impotence of academics in this field for FIFTY years (no progress of the /Relational Model/, but hundreds of anti-Relational papers marketed as “Relational”). Such as your paper on Movie Titles, which was proved false in another thread.

Normal humans are quite satisfied with the definition of /correct/ from their favourite dictionary. We take any abstraction away from that as either criminal, or insane, or both.

It is the same for the lunatic notion of “serializsability” and “schedule” and their variants. In the real world, we are multi-threaded. “Serialisability” is only relevant for developers who are so stupid, they can only grasp single-threaded operation, and operation from a fantasy of a database “version” that was magically taken at a non-existent “point in time”, frozen, like their brains, that is offline; private; personal, that they can suck on, that does not move and shift to interfere with the desperate need for a long suck.

Yes, of course, we have Scheduling. For actual multi-threaded thread, dependent on the resources requested, and the entire current (real moment in time) workload and cache contents. Not the ham-fisted “scheduling” of requests or pages in a fixed “version” that never existed.

Those who are so intellectually crippled, insist that we who are not crippled, should be so crippled, so that OUR operation is “correct” according to cripples.

No, we do not have to be “correct” according to some lunatic notion of “correct”. No, we don’t have to be “serialised”, according to some knuckle-dragging notion of “operation”. No, we don’t need a crippled “schedule” to execute hundreds of threads concurrently based on the reality of each thread. No, we don’t need the safety and comfort of fantasy notions and the tiled cells that foster them. No, you can’t impose your insanity on the sane.
>>>>
Yes, you can and you have, which is why your fantasy such as “MVCC” is now a COLLECTIVE fantasy, the expectation of the unqualified “developers”.
<<<<
But not with guys like me.

Nicola

> On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 16:08:28 UTC+10, Derek Ignatius Asirvadem wrote:
>
> Make no mistake:
> __ Truth = Reality = life
> __ Falsity = Rejection of Reality = death
>
> __ Sanity = conforming the intellect to Reality
> __ Insanity = desperately try to conform reality to the mind, which after a lifetime of failure, ends in suicide.
>
> Academics foster death. It is evil.

This is the Theological and Philosophical (when it was a science, before it was sabotaged by drug addicts and other insane) definition. It is science; logic. And a bit more qualification:

__ Truth = Reality = life
____ Permanent (it is eternal, but you wouldn’t understand that)
__ Falsity = Rejection of Reality = death
____ Transient, ever-changing

__ Sanity = conforming the intellect to Reality
__ Insanity = Rejection [denial] of Reality
____ erection of fantasy, desperate attempts to conform reality to the mind (their fantasy), which after a lifetime of failure [usually short], ends in suicide or murder-suicide.

> On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 13:37:40 UTC+10, Derek Ignatius Asirvadem wrote:

> It is stupefying, idiotic, insane, to define “correct” as an abstraction without reference to reality, and then try to apply it to reality, but academics love abstraction with no relation to reality, it is the foundation for their fantasies. This is the core principle that caused the impotence of academics in this field for FIFTY years (no progress of the /Relational Model/, but hundreds of anti-Relational papers marketed as “Relational”).

> Those who are so intellectually crippled, insist that we who are not crippled, should be so crippled, so that OUR operation is “correct” according to cripples.

With the release of mental patients into society, and the destruction thereof, sure, you have many friends, and there are now quite a few famous examples of the problem I describe (points above).

We have a 56yo male, who dresses in a skirt and wears a wig. Ok. He says he “identifies” as a 6yo girl. Ok. If I had any official duty of care upon him, I would that that act, in and of itself categorises him as insane, suffering from sex dysphoria (more, later), and have him locked up, in order to prevent him harming himself (self-harm and suicide are the province of the insane), and to preserve society from the contamination of insanity (mayhem and murder, and more commonly insane “thinking”). Up to a few years ago, that is what would happen.

But now, the globalists have forced enslaved countries to release the insane into society, and to accept the notions of the insane. Thus the insane have their insanity validated. Worse, they get together with other insane people, and validate each other, they form a COLLECTIVE insanity, a COLLECTIVE fantasy against reality, in the manner of populism in their “community” it is “real” to them.

<<<
“Gender” is one such. In reality, there is sex, not “gender”, and sex is exclusively male/female only (don’t argue in the tiny corners of the Bell curve, citing deformities, I will destroy them). Every cell in a person’s body is male or female only, because sex is established at the chromosome level. When a male castrates himself and mutilates his genitals to form “female” “vagina”, the “organ” remains male because every cell is male. Likewise, when a female has genital mutilation performed, the “organ” is completely made up of her female cells. Unscrupulous doctors will happily perform the mutilation for them: chink; chink; chink. The Chinese are known to perform “hysterectomies” on such males.

“Gender” is a fantasy, proved further by the fact that it is forever changing. 104 “genders” on Fakebook at last count. In this fantasy, “gender” is “assigned” at birth. No, actually, the first cells are created at conception, not birth, and all the progressive cells are formed during the entire nine months preceding birth. The event related to sex at birth is observation of reality, not an “assignment”. Sex is real, therefore it cannot be changed. The psychological pain they feel every time they look in the mirror is the tension of opposites, between their fantasy and reality. That is internal, that is what needs to be treated, not the body (drugs and mutilation). In their pain, they cannot imagine that, because falsity is ever-changing, they might want to reverse the “transition” in the future, and they can’t “transition” back, because it is permanent.

When a person rejects their sex, it is sex dysphoria, a severe mental illness, not “gender dysphoria”. Their proposal that our rejection of their fantasy causes their high rate of suicide is false, no, it is their mental illness that causes their suicide. If we accept their proposal, we have validated their mental illness; their fantasy, and contributed to their suicide. If we remain responsible we recognise their mental illness, and give them the help they need, so as to prevent their suicide, as well as their murder and mayhem in human society.

In the case of the academics who allege that they serve the database space, the fantasy they hold against reality is strongly established, it has FIFTY YEARS of maturity and populism within it. It is no less a mental illness than sex dysphoria. I do not use clinical terms re mental illness lightly, they are precise.

Young people are indoctrinated into the faith, and thus made insane. It is a de facto faith because it is blind faith, belief in a fantasy, that has no evidence in reality. Stonebraker is the great prophet, that delivered the “MVCC” myth, the fantasy. That is bad enough, but that needs a denial of reality, otherwise psychological pain ensues. So the denial of reality, schizophrenia, is part of the faith; part of the indoctrination, and the isolation from reality; from the industry; from the real world, is made up into an elitism for the chosen ones. Isolation from reality, which is mental illness by definition, is re-framed as a badge of superiority.

There is no such thing as a superiority complex: a truly superior person does not need constant validation, he knows he is superior. Properly understood, it is an inferiority complex, the inferior need to present as superior, and they have to do it constantly.

Of course, they propose their fantasies as “science”, but it is easily determined as pseudo-science. Science is truth, simple, eg. the single paper for the /Relational Model/, no citations necessary, it changed the industry. Pseudo-science consists of a mountain of papers, needing citations (populism) by the cult members, both pro and con, endless argument with no resolution, and has had zero effect on the industry.

As with any cult, one needs to drink the Kool-Aid, one has to sing the hymn to drown out reality, the mantra “readers never block writers, writers never block readers”. It is a particularly sick cult, because they themselves implement a system in which readers block writers, writers block readers. So there is a constant tension of opposites, a constant psychological pain.

As the mentally ill cannot be responsible, in their state of defined victim, they impose their disease; their sickness; their pain onto the sane. As seen here [paraphrased} “it is you, Derek, who is crazy, because you don’t love and respect my schizophrenic no-reference-to-reality notion of /correct/ ... no ? ... ok, then, you define /correct/ in schizophrenic terms, without any reference to reality ... no ? .. ok, then, I will kill myself.” No, fool, leave the contrived isolation of the academic asylum, come out into the sunshine, and enjoy reality. It won’t kill you.

Isolation from reality, as declared with pride, eliminates the possibility of serving the industry that they allege to serve. Theoreticians in the motor vehicle or construction or computer hardware industries are not isolated from the industry they serve. But here, we are guaranteed both: isolation with pride and zero service.

In contrast to the theory divorced from reality, as proclaimed, which is fantasy, the entire faith of the cult, the only theory that has value, is that which relates to reality: abstraction based on reality. As evidenced in the progress of SQL platforms.

So it is no surprise at all that in reality, all progress in this science has been made by real scientists, employees of the great DBMS platforms. In the Relational paradigm, that started with Dr E F Codd. That is why the cultists; the academics, hate him, that is why they endlessly demean him, that is why they market anti-relational filth as “relational”, that is why they sabotage the industry. It is the normal activity of the insane. That is why heavy marketing is implemented, both in the mountain of “academic papers”, and the media, it is pure propaganda for the faithful, and a vehicle to attract; seduce, the ignorant: “Here, you don’t have to think about what an online shared database is, just perceive it as a snapshot, frozen in a moment in time”, “here, write ‘transactions’ as if you are the only user changing that snapshot.”

----

The problem has been made worse recently, because of the rise of freeware, which is analogous to the rise of revolution ideology. Of course it is false, and that is why it has to be heavily marketed. It doesn’t work at all, but the marketing says it is better than the SQL Platforms, that a non-architected non-SQL non-platform based on non-reality, is somehow better. You get what you pay for.

It is so bad, that even normal people are infected with the blind faith of “MVCC”, blind to the fact that it is not “MVCC” but MV-non-CC+2PL. They parrot “‘MVCC’ as superior”, it has become a check-box issue for the SQL Platform providers.

Nicola

> On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 16:08:28 UTC+10, Derek Ignatius Asirvadem wrote:
>
> Make no mistake:
> __ Truth = Reality = life
> __ Falsity = Rejection of Reality = death
>
> __ Sanity = conforming the intellect to Reality
> __ Insanity = desperately try to conform reality to the mind, which after a lifetime of failure, ends in suicide.
>
> Academics foster death. It is evil.

This is the Theological and Philosophical (when it was a science, before it was sabotaged by drug addicts and other insane) definition. It is science; logic. And a bit more qualification:

__ Truth = Reality = life
____ Permanent (it is eternal, but you wouldn’t understand that)
__ Falsity = Rejection of Reality = death
____ Transient, ever-changing

__ Sanity = conforming the intellect to Reality
__ Insanity = Rejection [denial] of Reality
____ erection of fantasy, desperate attempts to conform reality to the mind (their fantasy), which after a lifetime of failure [usually short], ends in suicide or murder-suicide.

> On Friday, 13 August 2021 at 13:37:40 UTC+10, Derek Ignatius Asirvadem wrote:

> It is stupefying, idiotic, insane, to define “correct” as an abstraction without reference to reality, and then try to apply it to reality, but academics love abstraction with no relation to reality, it is the foundation for their fantasies. This is the core principle that caused the impotence of academics in this field for FIFTY years (no progress of the /Relational Model/, but hundreds of anti-Relational papers marketed as “Relational”).

> Those who are so intellectually crippled, insist that we who are not crippled, should be so crippled, so that OUR operation is “correct” according to cripples.

With the release of mental patients into society, and the destruction thereof, sure, you have many friends, and there are now quite a few famous examples of the problem I describe (points above).

We have a 56yo male, who dresses in a skirt and wears a wig. Ok. He says he “identifies” as a 6yo girl. Ok. If I had any official duty of care upon him, I would that that act, in and of itself categorises him as insane, suffering from sex dysphoria (more, later), and have him locked up, in order to prevent him harming himself (self-harm and suicide are the province of the insane), and to preserve society from the contamination of insanity (mayhem and murder, and more commonly insane “thinking”). Up to a few years ago, that is what would happen.

But now, the globalists have forced enslaved countries to release the insane into society, and to accept the notions of the insane. Thus the insane have their insanity validated. Worse, they get together with other insane people, and validate each other, they form a COLLECTIVE insanity, a COLLECTIVE fantasy against reality, in the manner of populism in their “community” it is “real” to them.

>>>>

“Gender” is one such. In reality, there is sex, not “gender”, and sex is exclusively male/female only (don’t argue in the tiny corners of the Bell curve, citing deformities, I will destroy them). Every cell in a person’s body is male or female only, because sex is established at the chromosome level. When a male castrates himself and mutilates his genitals to form “female” “vagina”, the “organ” remains male because every cell is male. Likewise, when a female has genital mutilation performed, the “organ” is completely made up of her female cells. Unscrupulous doctors will happily perform the mutilation for them: chink; chink; chink. The Chinese are known to perform “hysterectomies” on such males.

“Gender” is a fantasy, proved further by the fact that it is forever changing. 104 “genders” on Fakebook at last count. In this fantasy, “gender” is “assigned” at birth. No, actually, the first cells are created at conception, not birth, and all the progressive cells are formed during the entire nine months preceding birth. The event related to sex at birth is observation of reality, not an “assignment”. Sex is real, therefore it cannot be changed. The psychological pain they feel every time they look in the mirror is the tension of opposites, between their fantasy and reality. That is internal, that is what needs to be treated, not the body (drugs and mutilation). In their pain, they cannot imagine that, because falsity is ever-changing, they might want to reverse the “transition” in the future, and they can’t “transition” back, because it is permanent.

When a person rejects their sex, it is sex dysphoria, a severe mental illness, not “gender dysphoria”. Their proposal that our rejection of their fantasy causes their high rate of suicide is false, no, it is their mental illness that causes their suicide. If we accept their proposal, we have validated their mental illness; their fantasy, and contributed to their suicide. If we remain responsible we recognise their mental illness, and give them the help they need, so as to prevent their suicide, as well as their murder and mayhem in human society.

<<<<

In the case of the academics who allege that they serve the database space, the fantasy they hold against reality is strongly established, it has FIFTY YEARS of maturity and populism within it. It is no less a mental illness than sex dysphoria. I do not use clinical terms re mental illness lightly, they are precise.

Young people are indoctrinated into the faith, and thus made insane. It is a de facto faith because it is blind faith, belief in a fantasy, that has no evidence in reality, no reference to reality. Stonebraker is the great prophet, that delivered the “MVCC” myth, the fantasy. That is bad enough, but that needs a denial of reality, otherwise psychological pain ensues. So the denial of reality, schizophrenia, is part of the faith; part of the indoctrination, and the isolation from reality; from the industry; from the real world, is made up into an elitism for the chosen ones.

Isolation from reality, which is mental illness by definition, is re-framed as a badge of superiority.

There is no such thing as a superiority complex: a truly superior person does not need constant validation, he knows he is superior. Properly understood, it is an inferiority complex, the inferior need to present as superior, and they have to do it constantly. Observe the Chinese posturing.

Of course, they propose their fantasies as “science”, but it is easily determined as pseudo-science. Science is truth, simple, eg. the single paper for the /Relational Model/, no citations necessary, it changed the industry. Pseudo-science consists of a mountain of papers, needing citations (populism) by the cult members, both pro and con, endless argument with no resolution, and has had zero effect on the industry.

As with any cult, one needs to drink the Kool-Aid, one has to sing the hymn to drown out reality, the mantra “readers never block writers, writers never block readers”. It is a particularly sick cult, because they themselves implement a system in which readers block writers, writers block readers. So there is a constant tension of opposites, a constant psychological pain.

As the mentally ill cannot be responsible, in their state of defined victim, they impose their disease; their sickness; their pain onto the sane. As seen here [paraphrased} “it is you, Derek, who is crazy, because you don’t love and respect my schizophrenic no-reference-to-reality notion of /correct/ ... no ? ... ok, then, you define /correct/ in schizophrenic terms, without any reference to reality ... no ? .. ok, then, I will kill myself.” No, fool, leave the contrived isolation of the academic asylum, come out into the sunshine, and enjoy reality. It won’t kill you.

Isolation from reality, as declared with pride, eliminates the possibility of serving the industry that they allege to serve. Theoreticians in the motor vehicle or construction or computer hardware industries are not isolated from the industry they serve. But here, we are guaranteed both: isolation with pride and zero service.

In contrast to the theory divorced from reality, as proclaimed, which is fantasy, the entire faith of the cult, the only theory that has value, is that which relates to reality: abstraction based on reality. As evidenced in the progress of SQL platforms.

So it is no surprise at all that in reality, all progress in this science has been made by real scientists, employees of the great DBMS platforms. In the Relational paradigm, that started with Dr E F Codd. That is why the cultists; the academics, hate him, that is why they endlessly demean him, that is why they market anti-relational filth as “relational”, that is why they sabotage the industry. It is the normal activity of the insane. That is why heavy marketing is implemented, both in the mountain of “academic papers”, and the media, it is pure propaganda for the faithful, and a vehicle to attract; seduce, the ignorant: “Here, you don’t have to think about what an online shared database is, just perceive it as a snapshot, frozen in a moment in time”, “here, write ‘transactions’ as if you are the only user changing that snapshot.”

----

The problem has been made worse recently, because of the rise of freeware, which is analogous to the rise of revolution ideology. Of course it is false, and that is why it has to be heavily marketed. It doesn’t work at all, but the marketing says it is better than the SQL Platforms, that a non-architected non-SQL non-platform based on non-reality, is somehow better. You get what you pay for.

It is so bad, that even normal people are infected with the blind faith of “MVCC”, blind to the fact that it is not “MVCC” but MV-non-CC+2PL. They parrot “‘MVCC’ as superior”, it has become a check-box issue for the SQL Platform providers.

As a result of the exchange with Dan, I have updated the Transaction Sanity doc, to be generic SQL (eg. readily MS SQL which is the most common), and removed the SG specific notes. Of course, that excludes the freeware and Oracle, which are not SQL-compliant.

To be fair, it must be mentioned that MySQL is the least SQL-non-compliant, and it does not have the vulnerability of the gamut of locking problems (such as being wide open to deadlocks and app code interfering with the internal locks). I have not examined it recently, but it certainly appears that it is possible to maintain ACID compliance in MySQL, whereas PissGres and Oracle do not provide ACID in the herd of programs ("server"), and thus it is not possible to make the app code ACID compliant.

__ https://www.softwaregems.com.au/Documents/Article/Database/Transaction/Transaction%20Sanity.pdf

Nicola

Are there any facts, in my Transaction Sanity doc, p1 and p2, that you dispute ?

Cheers
Derek

On 2021-08-15, Derek Ignatius Asirvadem <derek.asirvadem@gmail.com> wrote:
> Are there any facts, in my Transaction Sanity doc, p1 and p2, that you
> dispute ?

How could I dispute facts?

Thank you for that document, and for the whole discussion around ACID
and transactions. It has made me understand how you use those terms (as
opposed to their "textbook" use), which in turn, has helped me clarify
many aspects of your critique of MVCC.

I'll gladly follow your developments on Dan's data model, if there are
any, and think how they (fail to) apply to MVCC-based systems.

Nicola

Nicola

> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 19:29:04 UTC+10, Nicola wrote:
> > On 2021-08-15, Derek Ignatius Asirvadem wrote:
> >
> > Are there any facts, in my Transaction Sanity doc, p1 and p2, that you
> > dispute ?
>
> How could I dispute facts?

Good to hear.

> Thank you for that document, and for the whole discussion around ACID
> and transactions.

You are welcome.

> It has made me understand how you use those terms (as
> opposed to their "textbook" use),

As you can see, I do not have private terms or re-definitions of terms, I use the definitions that have been established in the industry, in chronological order (SQL, genuine SQL Platforms of forty years). I trust you appreciate that technical terms are established in order to facilitate correct communication between people. When the academics use terms to mean different things than the established terms:
a. it is an act of dishonesty,
b. it guarantees that the communication will be laboured and confused (which is a substantial component in the volume of our discussion)
c. it is the base they use to promote some primitive and non-compliant feature as the feature (eg. anti-SQL as “SQL”; anti-ACID as “ACID”; etc)
d. their students are trained in such falsity, which breaks down when they are employed in industry

> which in turn, has helped me clarify
> many aspects of your critique of MVCC.

Great.

Perhaps some day, you too, will admit the utter falsity of MV-non-CC, the fantasy, and thus the insanity of perceiving an online shared active database as something, anything, that it is not, let alone a snapshot frozen in time, which is impossible. And the terrible consequences thereof.
> I'll gladly follow your developments on Dan's data model, if there are
> any,

Assuming you mean the data model relevant to this thread, the goal being Optimistic Locking, and showing the progress of the OLTP Transaction Template code, the GitHub Gist is here. This contains the DDL and obsolete stored proc code:
__ https://gist.github.com/DanielLoth/76d241515655e76cadddef6ed2d373aa

My submission, the latest version of code against that db, is here. It is now generic code for SQL-compliant Platforms (Sybase; DB2; MS; and Informix):
__ https://www.softwaregems.com.au/Documents/Article/Database/Transaction/Visit_Add_tr%20DA.sql

Because it is for Dan’s db, it does have some nuances: if it is at all confusing, ie. you don’t clearly see the difference re Template vs nuances, let me know and I will post code for the db in the Transaction Sanity doc.

If you mean the data modelling exercise for the Shooter db, please post to that effect. I don’t know how far Dan is interested in taking it. That is in another GithHub “Pull Request”.

> and think how they (fail to) apply to MVCC-based systems.

After having reached the status that you have, per your post, it would be interesting if you comment on that. The MV-non-CC plus the manual locking (you said “I love 2PL”) that you have to do vs the Lock Managers in real SQL platforms, that wouldn’t dream of allowing the user to interfere with locks.

Cheers
Derek

Nicola

In this thread, you posed questions re "Serialisation" and "Schedules", which I found very odd:
- why on earth should a developer 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.

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

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