RE: ** commit or rollback - diff
- From: A Joshi <ajoshi977@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Richard.Goulet@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 13:47:15 -0800 (PST)
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:
