using words - isolation levels vs locs

Ok. this is a question about the use of the verbal expression: Isolation Levels If you set isolation to dirty read, you are setting an isolation level. If you set lock mode to wait 2, is that still an isolation level? Nothing critical here, just an argument between coworkers. Thanks. Rob

No, it just tells Informix how long to wait for a record that is locked in the current isolation level before it gives up and returns an error. Isolation levels tell informix how "picky" (highly technical word there) to be with locking and transaction. dirty read ignores locks Each sucessive level of isolation locks more of the database for update, inserts and deletes to deal with different concurrency issues that can arise with repeatable read being the "worst/best" depending on how you look at it. Here is a snippet from the Informix Guide to SQL syntax manual: Using the Repeatable Read Option Use the Repeatable Read option to place a shared lock on every row that is selected during the transaction. Another process can also place a shared lock on a selected row, but no other process can modify any selected row during your transaction, nor insert a row that meets the search criteria of your query during your transaction. If you repeat the query during the transaction, you reread the same information. The shared locks are released only when the transaction commits or rolls back. Repeatable Read is the default isolation level in an ANSI-compliant database. Repeatable Read isolation places the largest number of locks and holds them the longest. Therefore, it is the level that reduces concurrency the most. Here is a link from the Info center: http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/idshelp/v10/index.jsp?topic=/com.ibm.sqls.doc/sqls817.htm Rob Konikoff wrote: > Ok. this is a question about the use of the verbal expression: Isolation > Levels > > If you set isolation to dirty read, you are setting an isolation level. > > If you set lock mode to wait 2, is that still an isolation level? > Nothing critical here, just an argument between coworkers. > Thanks. > Rob