Prev: Vulcan lastest version
Next: VO CDX and Comix CDX
From: Geoff Schaller on 21 Jul 2008 23:51
Richard.

You can only do this because your application is basically single user.
In even the smallest multi-user scenario table locking would be a
performance nightmare. And it simply isn't necessary.

Geoff


"richard.townsendrose" <richard.townsendrose(a)googlemail.com> wrote in
message
news:b0d22ebb-778d-4dee-9d7a-d63fc4d82d42(a)z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:

> Rob
>
> I have been thru this saga many times......
>
> What i do is table locks. and i forget all about checking if the
> record has changed. mostly one is writing new records.
>
> locking a table is much faster .... and when there is a crash, there
> are no held open record locks - apart from the userlog table which
> doesn't matter - indeed one can use that to tell who is and isn't
> logged on as it has datetimesin and datetimesout fields, and mode out
> (normal, controlled crash, or bang out)
>
> richard

From: DPLuigi on 22 Jul 2008 03:28
Hi

If you use mySQL is not a problem, because the innodb table has
internal mode for locking a read row :

A) you must know the number of row (unique incremental row)
B) The you lock the row

I ensure you that this method i work very well.

Best Regards Luigi De Palma
From: Rob van Erk on 22 Jul 2008 13:56
Thanks to all for the input. Seems to me I have to carefully consider
the pro's/cons of each option. Sufficient stuff to start a study.....

Brgds,
Rob
From: edgsun on 23 Jul 2008 10:28
On Jul 22, 12:56 pm, Rob van Erk <er...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks to all for the input. Seems to me I have to carefully consider
> the pro's/cons of each option. Sufficient stuff to start a study.....
>
> Brgds,
> Rob

How about Select for update ?

Or Am I missing something?
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Vulcan lastest version
Next: VO CDX and Comix CDX