Re: Commit after transacton is completed

From: William Robertson <william.robertson_at_bigfoot.com>
Date: 25 Nov 2005 00:51:19 -0800
Message-ID: <1132908679.260188.277880@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

Pradeep wrote:
> Expert-one-on-one mentions that we should commit only after the
> transaction completes, otherwise it takes more time and generates more
> redo. I agree to it. But suppose if my transaction takes a few minutes
> to complete, i will be holding locks for that time and other people
> will be reading the history data. So isn't this the disadvantage of
> commiting after transaction??
>
> thanks
>
> Pradeep

Well, a commit ends a transaction by definition anyway, but I don't think that's what you mean.

The other things you mention seem like good things to me, so I don't really see much of a disadvantage. If your transaction fails or you just change your mind you can roll back and nobody else has read the wrong data. Received on Fri Nov 25 2005 - 02:51:19 CST