RE: ** commit or rollback - diff

  • From: "Goulet, Richard" <Richard.Goulet@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <TESTAJ3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 08:56:28 -0500

Joe,
 
    No I don't think you dreamed up anything because I remember that
same all the way back to V3.  But in the case where you have no
transactions open I do believe that a commit or rollback is basically
the same.
 

Dick Goulet 

 

________________________________

From: TESTAJ3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:TESTAJ3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 8:52 AM
To: Goulet, Richard
Cc: ajoshi97@xxxxxxxxx; oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: ** commit or rollback - diff



so it is just my imagination or does any else remember (the old days, of
i think either v6 or 7 of oracle), when if you did a large transaction
and decided to rollback and it was quick and a commit took a while, but
then oracle did a switch since the majority of the time the commit was
what happened and it was now quick and the rollback took time to
complete, or did i just dream that whole thing up? 

joe 

_______________________________________
Joe Testa, Oracle Certified Professional 
Senior Consultant
Data Engineering and Administration
Nationwide Investments

(Work) 614-677-1668
(Cell) 614-312-6715

Interested in helping out your marriage?
Ask me about "Weekend to Remember"
Dec 11-13, 2009 here in Columbus.




From:   "Goulet, Richard" <Richard.Goulet@xxxxxxxxxxx> 
To:     <ajoshi97@xxxxxxxxx>, <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
Date:   02/13/2009 08:47 AM 
Subject:        RE: ** commit or rollback - diff 
Sent by:        oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

________________________________




From that point of view I do believe they are equal. 
  

Dick Goulet 




________________________________

From: A Joshi [mailto:ajoshi977@xxxxxxxxx <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
<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: