Pradeep wrote:
> Please fix what i am missing here.
>
> The argument against frequent commits is that oracle needs the
> transaction details, which is wiped out by COMMIT, to supports its
> multiversioning facility.
> But i have read that when oracle goes to rollback segments for getting
> the status of a trans id, and if the trans id not present it regards it
> as COMMITTED. This belief is what raised my question. ??
> If this not true, then what if a block update is committed->
> transaction id of the block does not indicate the commit status. and
> eventually after some time (read days) the rollback segments (which
> contains the status of that transaction id) gets wiped out, Now if i
> read that block will it give the 01555 error??
>
The primary argument against frequent commits is that you can't roll
them back. In theory, a transaction should be just that - one
transaction from start to finish with a single commit or rollback at the
end. In reality however sometimes you need to do more frequent commits
regardless of what some will say. If you need to run an update on every
row of a 90 zillion row table, you're going to have to commit every now
and then.
Received on Mon Jan 16 2006 - 15:00:36 CST
