Re: changing the isolation level

From: HansF <Fuzzy.Greybeard_at_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 23:23:08 GMT
Message-Id: <pan.2007.01.16.23.23.04.770002@gmail.com>

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 15:17:58 -0800, DA Morgan wrote:

> AlterEgo wrote:

>> Frank,
>>
>> I disagree with the notion that Read Uncommitted is unnecessary. It is all
>> based upon the business requirement. There are business requirements that
>> require only approximations and do not need to be audited. Below is a real
>> life scenario that would require substantial increase in hardware as well as
>> an increase in the development and maintenance functions if it weren't for
>> Read Uncommitted.
>>
>> Environment:
>> 200 million micro-transactions per day.
>> Real-time querying of the transactions to keep operational metrics for
>> alerts, notifications, etc.
>> Single row transactions in three tables from 60 web servers.
>>
>> Requirement:
>> Run a count every five minutes to factor transactions/minute (150K
>> transactions per minute at peak). Raise an alert if the count is plus or
>> minus 1.5 standard deviations from the norm at that time of the day.

> 
> I'm not sure why you think this requires READ UNCOMMITTED. Take a look
> at the DBMS_SERVER_ALERT built-in package. Why reinvent the wheel?

10G? OEM? Set a 'user metric' with an alert threshold.

But I'm still confused about AlterEgo's definition of transaction.

-- 
Hans Forbrich   (mailto: Fuzzy.GreyBeard_at_gmail.com)   
*** Feel free to correct me when I'm wrong!
*** Top posting [replies] guarantees I won't respond.

Received on Tue Jan 16 2007 - 17:23:08 CST