Re: "Transactions are bad, real bad" - discuss
Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 22:53:12 +0100
"Alfredo Novoa" <alfredo_at_ncs.es> wrote in message
> "Paul Vernon" <paul.vernon_at_ukk.ibmm.comm> wrote in message
> > I want to offer you some alternate solutions.
> > A) Invoice lines are persistent
> > Each invoice line is stored in the database in a set of tables set aside
> > 'invoices in progress'. These tables have the relevant constraints on them
> > as each line is inserted (and committed) into these tables, the
> > are checked. Once an invoice is complete - defined by say a view over the
> > 'invoices in progress' it can be moved into the 'main' database tables.
> I like it very much!
> I would implement it adding a "Completed" boolean attribute to the
> invoice header.
That is one way. However it generally makes defining you constraints a little more difficult. Also a bigger argument against useing the same set of tables for 'incomplete' things is that often the incompletness means that not all attributes required in a tuple for a completed thing are known. Keeping things seperate save us from defining special values/union domians to cover the 'missing information'.
> I could declare a "CompletedInvoices" view, and then I would not need
> to move anything.
> It is very good for me because the users will see the article stock
> variations instantly. It is important when you work with articles with
> serial numbers.
I agree that the pros/cons are business specific.
> > Frankly this is the best design. It avoids issues such as not defining the
> > constraint
> > 'Every invoice must have at least one line'
> It should be:
> 'Every completed invoice must have at least one line'
> > B) Invoice lines are not persistent
> > As above, but the tables set aside for 'invoices in progress' are local,
> > in-memory tables on the client. Again, the constraints on these will be
> > similar, but not identical to those on 'completed invoices'.
> I have considered it, but I would need a local DBMS on the client,
Oh for such things.
> several constraint violations would not be detected until the invoice
I see little reason why a local (non-persistent) DBMS could not declare constraints that reference data in a server DBMS.
> > The problem we have is: how do we get to test the DBMS constraints against
> > 'invoice in progress' without actually doing an update? Now the
> > are available in the catalog, all we need do is pull them out and test
> > against our proposed update.
> But the constraint could be violated only after the test.
You mean after the update? No, the point is that we make our update against a *logical* copy of the database and test the resulting database value against the defined database constraints. Physically you could, if you wanted, just copy what SQL DBMSes do - an uncommited update that gets rolled back
> IMHO it looks a lot like a distributed database update with defered
> synchronization, and frankly I don't like it.
I don't see the analogy.
> Where would we 'store' the proposed updates?
In local relvars (tables)
> Proposed updates looks very similar to uncommited updates.
Indeed, because that is the functionality that I am trying to emulate, but in a logically consistent way that also IMO fits business requirements better.
> Thanks a lot for your suggestions. I think I will use the A)
I agree that A) is the best in a SQL environment
Business Intelligence, IBM Global Services Received on Wed May 07 2003 - 23:53:12 CEST