Re: Let me be the first

Lukas Barton said: > >>> - http://docs.rinet.ru/InforSmes/ch15/ch15.htm ( For an index, three >>> more locks are necessary--one lock for the accessed row, one for the >>> row >>> before the accessed row, and one for the row after the accessed row) >>> >> >> Which version of IDS does this refer to? >> >> In any event, I never realised I was this lucky before. <preen> Maybe >> I'll >> enter the Lottery this weekend. >> > I use IDS 10.0 on Windows. > Here is statement sequention to demonstrate my problem: > > Thread1: > UPDATE TABLE table1 SET col1=10 WHERE col2=15; > .... further processing for 10 minutes.... > > > Thread2: > SELECT * FROM TABLE table1 WHERE col2=20;> (locked until thread1 finished). > > > There is index on col1 and col2. I can't see what why those rows should lock each other. Are you sure you're using committed read, and can you post the explain plan for both queries, please? -- Bye now, Obnoxio "... no bill is required as no value was provided." -- Christine Normile -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by OpenProtect(http://www.openprotect.com), and is believed to be clean.