Re: Commit after transacton is completed

I am sorry, but i think i wasn't clear enough. Let me rephrase it

Lets say i have table (Col1,Col2) . This table has 100,000 rows.

Now I run a query to update Col1. This update might take lets say 5 minutes. At this point of time if someone else wants to update Col2. he cannot because its locked my be. He has to wait for that 5 minutes.

If I had run that update query with a COMMIT after every 500 rows, i am locking only 500 hundred rows and the other user can update the unlocked data.

So wouldn't second option be a better choice. I know that commit only after a transaction is the best choice, its just that i wanted to have a clear solution in case of the above issue.

Thanks
Pradeep

William Robertson wrote:
> 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 - 04:17:07 CST