Re: Setting Dirty Reads or No Lock for SELECT

From: George Barbour <george.barbour_at_gecm.com>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 09:18:24 +0100
Message-ID: <3b15fc5a$1@pull.gecm.com>

I think were talking cross purposes here, and a lock has little to do with 'snapshot too old'.
Sybrand is correct (not that Sybrand needs me to say it.) select doesn't lock your table.
What I think you are coming up against is:- Oracle will always strive to provide a consistent view of the data, that is one of its prime purposes.
Oracle will not allow a dirty read of the data. E.g. Oracle does not have SET TRANSACTION Read Uncommitted.

George Barbour.

"Sybrand Bakker" <postbus_at_sybrandb.demon.nl> wrote in message news:thapj116uq3024_at_beta-news.demon.nl...
>
> "Lau, Wayne" <WLau_at_Collegeboard.org> wrote in message
> news:C3E31780D570D4119FBF00B0D0208309B52ADE_at_RO...
> > How can you indicate to the SELECT statement to not put a lock on a
table
> > while you are reading from it. This is important for me when doing long
> > queries on an Oracle database. DB2 had a "WITH UR" option and SQL
Server
> > has a "NO LOCK" option. Sorry for the novice question, but just started
to
> > use Oracle. Doh! Thanks. Later...
> >
> >
> > - Wayne
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Posted from cb4nyo.collegeboard.org [207.122.6.3]
> > via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
>
>
> select doesn't lock your table.
>
> Hth,
>
> Sybrand Bakker, Oracle DBA
>
>
>
Received on Thu May 31 2001 - 03:18:24 CDT