NetComrade wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 00:11:00 GMT, Mladen Gogala <gogala_at_sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 18:20:59 -0500, Serge Rielau wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Well, we agree on the price tag at least.
>>>Now I have no clue how statistical column correlation has anything to do
>>>with locking granularity.
>>
>>Serge, my suspicion is the following: column C1 has some kind of
>>relationship (business, logical, statistical?) with the column C2.
>
>
> I've recently stumbled open the row_scn function in Tom Kyte's book.
> In order for row_scn function to work properly for each row, the table
> was created with a special clause, so that to allow room for such info
> to be stored on a row-level not a block level.
>
> Not all tables need to allow 'column level' locking, and it obviously
> has an additional overhead (just like row_scn function), so the
> default can stay, and 'column lockable' tables could have a special
> clause as well... Of course there is much work to be done beyond that,
> and as long the benefits outweigh the costs, it might still be worth
> doing it.
>
> .......
> We run Oracle 9.2.0.6 on RH4 AMD
> remove NSPAM to email
A demo using ORA_ROWSCN has been in Morgan's Library for more than a
year. I recently updated it to 10gR2.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)
Received on Mon Dec 19 2005 - 16:11:46 CST
