On 4/21/05, Jared Still <jkstill@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 4/20/05, Vitalis <vitalisman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >=20 > > (why use "abort" and force a recovery everytime while we could use > "immediate" > > in most cases?) >=20 > =20 > Because it is faster. I don't think so, if we're talking about delays caused by active transactio= ns. The recovery would have to roll forward the updates that the initial transaction(s) had made; then Oracle would have to roll back the work again... AFAIK it would take longer because of the recovery. Jerome -- //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l