Right; I was thinking of checkpoint stuff, in a sense. Smaller transactions make things waaay slower :) .
--Keith On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 14:03:45 -0500 (EST), Clay Dowling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Keith Herold said: > > I have a batch process that commits sets of 25 pre-built sql scripts > > on a timed basis. I have been wrapping the execution of all 25 sets > > in a single begin...end transaction set. The problem is that if any > > of those scripts fails to execute properly, than all 25 scripts are > > rolled back. It would be nice to get a bit better granuality, with > > partial commits or something. > > That's pretty much the definition of a transaction. Everything succeeds > or everything fails. Smaller transactions are what you want. The things > that should succeed or fail together go in the same transaction. > > Clay Dowling > -- > Lazarus Notes from Lazarus Internet Development > http://www.lazarusid.com/notes/ > Articles, Reviews and Commentary on web development > -- ****************************************************** - Ever notice how 'big' isn't, compared to 'small'? - I'm not a professional; I just get paid to do this. - Rules for programming: 1. Get it working, right? 2. Get it working right. - Things I've learned about multithreaded programming: 123... PPArrvooottieedcc ttm ueelvvteeirrtyyhtt rhheiianndgge dwi hnpi rctohhg eri aslm omscitanalgt iowcbh,je engceltvo ebwrah lip,co hso srci abonlt ehb .ee^Nr waicscee snsoetd 'aotb jtehcet -slaomcea lt'il m^Ne from two or more threads ******************************************************
