Comments in line:
--
Jonathan Lewis
Yet another Oracle-related web site: http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk
Practical Oracle 8i: Building Efficient Databases
Publishers: Addison-Wesley
More reviews at: http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/book_rev.html
Alex Filonov wrote in message <959gef$k4r$1_at_nnrp1.deja.com>...
>Kinda strange logic, guys. The trace file says that this is a table
>exclusive lock.
>
No, table locks would be TM locks, the supplied listing showed
PROD_USER 13 124 TX Exclusive None
UPDATE object set flag = 1 WHERE plan = 'A' AND Id = 3466629
PROD_USER 29 9034 TX None Share
UPDATE object set flag = 1 WHERE plan = 'B' AND Id = 3466631;
TX locks are transaction locks.
>
> INITTRANS says how many transactions may be kept in a
>block. If you have more transactions than that, you'll get a block
>latch, not a table lock.
>
No, you get a TX share lock.
>
> Try to index all foreign keys in the
detail
>table, it should help.
>
No, the original post also said:
I tried to disable all foreign keys but it didn't help.
so there are no foreign keys in the detail table. You may also
note that the pk/fk problem can only occur when you try to
delete a row from the PK table, or change the PK value of
an existing row. A statement of the form:
UPDATE object set flag = 1 WHERE plan = 'B' AND Id = 3466631;
is unlikely to be changing a PK..
Received on Wed Jan 31 2001 - 11:30:15 CST
