>Scot,
>
>I think I already thanked you for the reply but I have another question. One of the issues that has been raised has to do with row-level and page-level locking with SQL Server. The person on the Oracle side of the fence has told me that the inability of SQL Server to handle row-level and page-level locking is one the reasons he is leaning to Oracle. Yet, in reading the documentation on SQL 6.5, it appeart that ". . . locking is now configurable between row-level and page-level, with automatic deadlock resolution. . ."
>
>In your experience, is this really an issue or is the Oracle guy just grasping at straws here.
>
>Thanks, AL

SS 6.5, AFAIK, does support row level locking. I'm investigating this subject currently, so I don't have any concrete facts for you right now. I think the general scheme is that there is a lock escalation process that can cause you problems (and help n others, of course) with SS. I believe it is one of those behind-the-scenes approaches, and maybe your Oracle guy is referring to an explicit ability to control locking that SS does not have? There is a bit of a problem when the locks of 2 seperate processes are blocking each other, this could also be what your Oracle guy was talking about.

I just picked up a copy of "The SQL Server 6.5 Performance Optimization and Tuning Handbook" by Ken England (ISBN: 1-55558-180-3, from amazon.com). It looks like it has a fairly good discussion of locking, but I haven't sunk my teeth into it yet.

HTH,
Scot.