Re: MERGE vs REPLACE

On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 10:15:30AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> I don't think MERGE can really be made to be both though, in which case
> it should really be the SQL2003 MERGE and we can make REPLACE/INSERT ON
> DUPLICATE UPDATE something else.  Perhaps a special form of MERGE where
> you know it's going to be doing that locking.  I really don't like the
> idea of making the SQL2003 version of MERGE be the MERGE special case
> (by requiring someone to take a table lock ahead of time or do something
> else odd).

Anyone know off-hand what the big 3 do? If the industry consensus is
that merge should actually be REPLACE/INSERT ON DUPLICATE UPDATE then
it's probably better to follow that lead.
-- 
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant      jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software      http://pervasive.com    work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf       cell: 512-569-9461