Re: transaction toggling

--- Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> wrote:

> Matthew Peter wrote:
> > Is there a way to disable transactions on certian
> > queries? I read a while back that this wasn't
> > possible, just wondering if it is in 8.1 or
> planned in
> > the future?
> >
> > Does it even make a dent in the performance if a
> query
> > is wrapped in a transaction instead of out? Such
> as a
> > view counter, like...
> >
> > update views = views + 1 where x = 1;?
>
> It's not in general possible to have part of your
> database under
> transactional control and part not.
>
> For example, what happens in your update if there
> are two processes
> incrementing the view counter - A is in a
> transaction, B is not.
> A begins transaction
> A increments view count
> B increments view count
> A rolls back transaction
>
> What should happen here?

I'm not worried about that. I know what transactions
are suppose to 'prevent', but for a hit counter I
don't need transaction support to rollback.

Having a busy site I don't see the benefits to
automatically wrap every transaction with BEGIN; ...
COMMIT; w/o option to IGNORE; ... DONE;

I don't want to consume more resources than necessary,
generating unnecessary overhead and junk for VACUUM to
clean up if possible...

MP

__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com