RE: Rollback per transaction %:73 %?

From: Tanel Poder <>
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 22:29:16 +0800
Message-id: <EF555F3A4DD443E8AF20E2EC617872F9@windows01>

Yep, merge should be used whenever you can. This should eliminate the issue I mentioned... I was talking more about implications of "insert->if failed then update" approach, should anyone still go with it.

Tanel Poder <> 



From: []
On Behalf Of Flado
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 21:16
Subject: RE: Rollback per transaction %:73 %?

* From: Tanel Poder <tanel.poder.003_at_xxxxxxx>

* To: "'Wiktor Moskwa'" <wmoskwa_at_xxxxxxxxxxxx>

* Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:22:47 +0800
Hi Wiktor, In theory you should choose the approach based on which case occurs mostly - if you are expecting 99% of inserts to fail as corresponding rows already exist in database (and need to be updated instead) then better start with update and if 0 rows found then insert. And vice versa, if you expect to insert 99% of rows and only update 1% then better start with insert (and if it fails then update). -- In theory, you sould choose MERGE in such cases, no? --
Received on Fri Aug 08 2008 - 09:29:16 CDT

Original text of this message