RE: ** commit or rollback - diff

From: A Joshi <>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 13:47:15 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>


   Thanks. Yes, I see that from safety point of view. From
performance point of view and resource consumption : which is faster? Or does it make no diff? I know commit is expensive operation : however : is that only if there are changes. Thanks

  • On Thu, 2/12/09, Goulet, Richard <> wrote: From: Goulet, Richard <> Subject: RE: ** commit or rollback - diff To:, Date: Thursday, February 12, 2009, 4:38 PM

Rollback is safer just incase you did a DML transaction without knowing it like inside a procedure.


[] On Behalf Of A Joshi
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 4:32 PM To:
Subject: ** commit or rollback - diff      

    If I have not done a dml

      transaction in a session : no update, delete or insert etc. I have only 
      done select and some of the objects can be over a db link. So I can do a 
      commit or rollback so that no transaction is pending in my session. My 
      question is : is there any difference in such case between the behaviour 
      of commit and rollback. When there is no data as such to commit or 
      rollback.  I am thinking it is better to do rollback since it has to 
      do less. Am I wrong. Any observation. Thanks for help. 


Received on Thu Feb 12 2009 - 15:47:15 CST

Original text of this message