Re: Let me be the first

Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > Lukas Barton said: > >> This makes Informix quite unuseable for OLTP in comibination with batch >> processing (the same time). >> > > Shit, you mean I've been doing it wrong for 20 years? > > And how did you solve the problem I'am facing now: - I have two tables - I use read_commited transactions - User one runs batch process upon them that locks some rows in them for reading (because of locking next and previous record in indexes it also lock some other records) - User two wants to read his records which are locked by user one and must wait until batch process started by user one finishes This works smoothly on Oracle, DB2 (PC and OS400), PostgreSQL, MS SQL, Firebird, Interbase,... where is not so stupid locking implemented.... You don't use transactions? (eg. dirty_reads only). Lukas

"You don't use transactions? (eg. dirty_reads only). " why can you not use dirty read within a transaction? if someone has the row I can still read it in my OLTP transaction its only that i can't update it till the batch job releases it. The only real arguement is if it is then wrong to read data that is not currently committed but is extremely likely that it is about to change