RE: ** commit or rollback - diff
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 08:46:27 -0500
From that point of view I do believe they are equal.
From: A Joshi [mailto:ajoshi977_at_yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 4:47 PM To: oracle-l_at_freelists.org; Goulet, Richard Subject: RE: ** commit or rollback - diff
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 <Richard.Goulet_at_parexel.com> wrote:
From: Goulet, Richard <Richard.Goulet_at_parexel.com> Subject: RE: ** commit or rollback - diff To: ajoshi977_at_yahoo.com, oracle-l_at_freelists.org Date: Thursday, February 12, 2009, 4:38 PM Rollback is safer just incase you did a DML transaction withoutknowing it like inside a procedure.
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] On Behalf Of A Joshi
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 4:32 PM To: oracle-l_at_freelists.org 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. ThanksReceived on Fri Feb 13 2009 - 07:46:27 CST