Re: Performance degradation question w/transactions

rambabu@sprynet.com ("Vijay R. Anisetti") wrote: :Nils Myklebust wrote: :> :> Roger Tomas <tomasr@agcs.com> wrote: :> :> :John Cowles wrote: :> :> :> :> Test 1: :> :> ------- :<< snip >><< snip >> :<< snip >><< snip >> :> :> "without transactions" means there are no transactions at all. In the :> last test each sql statement is it's own "transaction", but nothing is :> written to the log for these statements, so this would obviously be :> much faster. This may be dangerous, but very usefull for many :> purposes. : :Nothing is written to the log only when the database does not use :'logging'. :Otherwise, every insert/update/delete is logged, whether it is wrapped :in a :begin work/commit work statements or not. At least, this is what I have :been :thinking informix does, any comments? You are right of course. It's just that I think what was actually meant by "without transactions" was that the database was set up to not use logging. In my understanding of the words without transactions means the same as setting up the database with no logging. If you set up a database with logging you allways get transactions. If you do not explisitly write begin/commit work the transactions are still there, just that every single updating statement is treated as a single transaction. If you set up a database without logging you can't use begin/commit work and get no transactions. For anything to be a transaction it has to be logged. This is needed both to be able to defer the final update to the database until commit time (so the different isolation levels can work) and to be able to do a rollback. Nils.Myklebust@idg.no NM Data AS, P.O.Box 9090 Gronland, N-0133 Oslo, Norway My opinions are those of my company The Informix FAQ is at http://www.iiug.org