Bernt M. Johnsen wrote: > > Hi, > >> I'm going to correct myself here and say that SERIALIZABLE would probably >> be >> the right choice in this case, since REPEATABLE READ won't prevent >> phantoms. >> I was trying to avoid SERIALIZABLE if possible to increase concurrency, >> but >> I don't think I have a choice in this case. Is there any way to avoid >> SERIALIZABLE in this case or is using it in a short transaction with my >> requirements acceptable? > > SERIALIZABLE is the right choice in your case. The transaction you > describe would be pretty short, so I guess it should not be a > performnace problem either. However, that will of course depend on > your application and one would need a detailed description of the > application and the anticipated load to figure that out. > -- > Bernt Marius Johnsen, Database Technology Group, > Staff Engineer, Technical Lead Derby/Java DB > Sun Microsystems, Trondheim, Norway > > >
Thanks for the confirmation, Brent. -- Ace -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Atomic-check-for-row-existence-and-insert-if-doesn%27t-exist-tf3204425.html#a8988668 Sent from the Apache Derby Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
