Got it. i really appreciate your help. On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 11:14 PM, McKinley <[email protected]> wrote: > I mean that if you are not running the REST server or high availability then > you can assume that even if you only put the read lock in the Java > thread/object world, the database will not change. No other process exists > that could change it. You do not need to bother with a read lock in the > database. > > Cheers, > > McKinley > > On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Linan Wang <[email protected]> wrote: > >> McKinley >> Thank you very much for the detailed explanation. however, I don't get >> the part about "only one JVM will access database". >> neo4j doesn't support multiple JVMs has write access to the same db, right? >> >> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 9:14 PM, McKinley <[email protected]> wrote: >> > If a second thread reads that there is no node with external_id 123 in >> > between the time that a first thread finds no node and elects to create >> it, >> > you will get 2 nodes with external_id 123. So yes, you need to introduce >> a >> > lock and synchronize. >> > _______________________________________________ > Neo4j mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user >
-- Best regards Linan Wang _______________________________________________ Neo4j mailing list [email protected] https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user
