It's not the cost of protecting one transaction from another transaction so much as the cost of flushing a transaction to storage to survive a crash.

In the bad old days you had to wait for a lever to move and for the disk to rotate at least once!

> It's not the cost of protecting one transaction from another transaction

I know it’s not and never suggested it was.

I was making the point that writes contain more overhead than reads (which should be obvious) so people should bear that in mind when reading this blog post.

Edit: is it “bear” or “bare”? I’m never sure with that phrase haha