Wrong.  When Oracle says it's committed, it's committed.  No
difference between when, where, and how.  In Oracle, the committed
version is *always* the first presented to the user... it takes time
to go back and look at older versions; but why shouldn't that be a bit
slower, it isn't common practice anyway.  Same with rollbacks... why
should they optimize for them when 97% of transactions commit?

Do 97% of transactions commit because Oracle has slow rollbacks and developers are working around that performance issue, or because they really commit?

I have watched several developers that would prefer to issue numerous selects to verify things like foreign keys in the application in order to avoid a rollback.

Anyway, I don't have experience with big Oracle applications but I'm not so sure that 97% of transactions would commit if rollbacks were cheaper.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?


Reply via email to