db-derby-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ace Jayz <fourtl...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Atomic check for row existence and insert if doesn't exist
Date Thu, 15 Feb 2007 16:40:24 GMT

Bernt M. Johnsen wrote:
> Hi,
>> I'm going to correct myself here and say that SERIALIZABLE would probably
>> be
>> the right choice in this case, since REPEATABLE READ won't prevent
>> phantoms. 
>> I was trying to avoid SERIALIZABLE if possible to increase concurrency,
>> but
>> I don't think I have a choice in this case.  Is there any way to avoid
>> SERIALIZABLE in this case or is using it in a short transaction with my
>> requirements acceptable?
> SERIALIZABLE is the right choice in your case. The transaction you
> describe would be pretty short, so I guess it should not be a
> performnace problem either. However, that will of course depend on
> your application and one would need a detailed description of the
> application and the anticipated load to figure that out.
> -- 
> Bernt Marius Johnsen, Database Technology Group, 
> Staff Engineer, Technical Lead Derby/Java DB
> Sun Microsystems, Trondheim, Norway

Thanks for the confirmation, Brent.

-- Ace
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Atomic-check-for-row-existence-and-insert-if-doesn%27t-exist-tf3204425.html#a8988668
Sent from the Apache Derby Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

View raw message