But adding it to an 80ms operation is. If your operation is 0.5ms it’s either a read on a small table, or maybe a single write – transaction isolation wouldn’t even be relevant there. You’re right that I did mean consistency rather that integrity though, slip of the terminology, but not really worth quibbling over. The point I meant was that I like my data to make sense, a funny quirk of mine.
Lol what an absurd take. A transaction is a sequence of operations, not a single one, so even small tables can meet that threshold with enough query logic. I guess you’re unfamiliar with medium to large datasets, but it’s not uncommon to use the aggregate functions that SQL provides in real world situations, and on large tables that can easily reasonably exceed 1s. Toy my arse. Go play with yourself
Although this is no surprise tbh because apparently you don’t understand why transactions are even necessary. Benchmarks shmenchmarks. Whether it works is more important.
I do not apologise for the downvote because this is smug shit only a junior would say
Exactly my point. Wrong technology. If your operation takes more than 1s and you just accept it, you are not very good at your job. No worries, more job security for me!
I would recommend reading a few books, but given that you couldn’t even read my first post about when to use transactions, it’s futile.
Jesus fucking Christ man, not everyone’s use cases are your use cases. Get some real world experience. If you don’t know the kinda shit you have to actually do, it’s easy, but sometimes the show’s just gotta go on
Yeah, and not adapting accumulates the kind of tech debt that pays my bills when I have to come clean up. If everyone was doing their job I would be in a different like of work, a less profitable one for sure.
But adding it to an 80ms operation is. If your operation is 0.5ms it’s either a read on a small table, or maybe a single write – transaction isolation wouldn’t even be relevant there. You’re right that I did mean consistency rather that integrity though, slip of the terminology, but not really worth quibbling over. The point I meant was that I like my data to make sense, a funny quirk of mine.
If your single operations take 80ms either it’s a toy app or someone didn’t do their job (unoptimized queries, wrong technology, wrong modeling, etc).
Lol what an absurd take. A transaction is a sequence of operations, not a single one, so even small tables can meet that threshold with enough query logic. I guess you’re unfamiliar with medium to large datasets, but it’s not uncommon to use the aggregate functions that SQL provides in real world situations, and on large tables that can easily reasonably exceed 1s. Toy my arse. Go play with yourself
Although this is no surprise tbh because apparently you don’t understand why transactions are even necessary. Benchmarks shmenchmarks. Whether it works is more important.
I do not apologise for the downvote because this is smug shit only a junior would say
Exactly my point. Wrong technology. If your operation takes more than 1s and you just accept it, you are not very good at your job. No worries, more job security for me!
I would recommend reading a few books, but given that you couldn’t even read my first post about when to use transactions, it’s futile.
deleted by creator
Jesus fucking Christ man, not everyone’s use cases are your use cases. Get some real world experience. If you don’t know the kinda shit you have to actually do, it’s easy, but sometimes the show’s just gotta go on
Yeah, and not adapting accumulates the kind of tech debt that pays my bills when I have to come clean up. If everyone was doing their job I would be in a different like of work, a less profitable one for sure.
Good for you babes, but I wouldn’t trust you to wipe your arse if you can’t even keep data consistent
Of course data is kept consistent, that’s ACID.