RE: ** commit or rollback - diff
- From: "Goulet, Richard" <Richard.Goulet@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <ajoshi97@xxxxxxxxx>, <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 08:46:27 -0500
From that point of view I do believe they are equal.
Dick Goulet
________________________________
From: A Joshi [mailto:ajoshi977@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 4:47 PM
To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Goulet, Richard
Subject: RE: ** commit or rollback - diff
Dick,
Thanks. Yes, I see that from safety point of view. From performance
point of view and resource consumption : which is faster? Or does it
make no diff? I know commit is expensive operation : however : is that
only if there are changes. Thanks
--- On Thu, 2/12/09, Goulet, Richard <Richard.Goulet@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Goulet, Richard <Richard.Goulet@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: ** commit or rollback - diff
To: ajoshi977@xxxxxxxxx, oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thursday, February 12, 2009, 4:38 PM
Rollback is safer just incase you did a DML transaction without
knowing it like inside a procedure.
Dick Goulet
________________________________
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of A Joshi
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 4:32 PM
To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: ** commit or rollback - diff
Hi,
If I have not done a dml transaction in a session : no update,
delete or insert etc. I have only done select and some of the objects
can be over a db link. So I can do a commit or rollback so that no
transaction is pending in my session. My question is : is there any
difference in such case between the behaviour of commit and rollback.
When there is no data as such to commit or rollback. I am thinking it
is better to do rollback since it has to do less. Am I wrong. Any
observation. Thanks for help. Thanks
Other related posts: