Is dbload lock the database untill it finish?

Is true dbload lock the database until it finish? If I insert few thousand of rows into a table. Is do the dbload more efficient or just insert row by row? Do buffered log or do unbuffered log? Buffered/Unbuffered logging will causes locking when it exceeds the limit. No logging will no rollback/commit allows. What are your approach?

Raymond Chui wrote: > > Is true dbload lock the database until it finish? No. Dbload will NEVER lock the database. Optionally the -k flag will cause dbload to lock exclusively the TABLE for the duration of the operation but not by default. > If I insert few thousand of rows into a table. Is do the dbload more > efficient or just insert row by row? DBload will be MUCH faster. > Do buffered log or do unbuffered log? Buffered/Unbuffered logging will > causes > locking when it exceeds the limit. No logging will no rollback/commit > allows. Buffered -vs- unbuffered logging is your choice. Personally I use UNBUFFERED logging since it is more secure. The logical log buffers are flushed at the completion of ANY transaction rather than waiting until they are filled. This improves the chances that transactions that have been acknowledged will not be lost in a hard system crash be being rolled back during fast recovery because the transactions COMMIT record was never flushed. You can use the dbload -n <num> flag to specify the number of rows inserted between commits. Then dbload will perform partial commits of the load every <num> rows so that you do not use up locks or create a long transaction problem. > What are your approach? Art S. Kagel