Re: Deadly sins againts database performance/scalability

From: Frank <fbortel_at_nescape.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:38:10 +0100
Message-ID: <bq3607$72h$1@news1.tilbu1.nb.home.nl>

Mark D Powell wrote:

> pagesflames_at_usa.net (Dusan Bolek) wrote in message news:<1e8276d6.0311250803.3cbc43be_at_posting.google.com>...
>

>>Hello,
>>
>>I'm just creating some document how developers should/must not behave
>>when dealing with Oracle database. I written down some basic rules and
>>came with idea what's the most stupid thing that you can do to your
>>database.
>>I have two on mind, first one is not using BIND variables and the
>>second one is using COMMIT in a loop statement. However, there will be
>>more of these.
>>So I have question to you here. What's the most stupid, but in real
>>world foundable, mistakes in development applications using Oracle
>>datatabase?

>
>
> Dusan, I would suggest you change your wording about issuing commit
> within a loop since in many cases the commits need to be performed
> within a loop. I think it is the frequency of commits rather than the
> logical coding structure that is the issue. In my opinion how
> frequently a commit should be issued is dependent on how likely
> another session will need update access to the rows being processed.
> In a transaction driven system the inventory rows may well require
> commits be issued on a per-row or very few row basis. While another
> program in the application, which is the only source of update
> activity for a table that has low select activity, would best be
> served by one or very few commits.
>
> Be careful in the process of trying to get something into the hands of
> developers that you do not over simplify the problem and end up making
> a statement that you later consider "dumb". Writing for developers is
> not an easy task.
>
> Good luck
> -- Mark D Powell --

I'm sure Dusan referred to the "we have a possible 1555, so let's commit every ...uhm, 5000 processed rows". Committing within a loop to "prevent" 1555's from happening is creating the 1555's!

-- 
Regards, Frank van Bortel

Received on Wed Nov 26 2003 - 15:38:10 CST