Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
On 10/14/08, *Ask Bjørn Hansen* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
On Oct 13, 2008, at 10:55, Jim Starkey wrote:
You are right if you think about transaction context. The
thing is most web shops, almost all, run in autocommit mode.
This is the 80% case (if not more). Of course when you run
within the context of a transaction you have an issue, I
mentioned that in my original email, but the majority case
does not do this. They fire off seven queries, get the
results, and then build a page.
Gosh, Brian, that's a pretty good argument for an aggregating
interface. Of course then they would have a single transaction
and the results would even be consistent.
I think that's missing the point a little pushing the transactions.
:-) Not using transacions isn't just being lazy; in many
applications most queries can be done safely without transactions.
Spending any CPU cycles on them would just be wasted.
Not to mention disk I/O.
Disk I/O does not have anything to do with this. With a transactional
engine, even in autocommit mode a transaction will have to be initiated
and terminated. For readonly queries there is not much overhead
associated with this, but for update queries you will need to write log
entries for each write transaction. Grouping these operations into one
transaction may actually put less strain on the system.
Roy
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
