|
Walden/Ron, I agree, a single update statement works well and closes the window of exposure that a reread without record lock exposes. a. Often in transactional systems, some fields are ok to allow the latest value to win (such as salesYTD) while others should not allow concurrent updates therefore the strategy of including the fields that don’t allow concurrent in the where clause is effective. Update x.y set name = ‘Frank’ where keyField = 9 and lockfield1 = “old value1’ and lockfield2 = ‘old value2’ b. Using a counter or timestamp loses this level of control. An unimportant field change could through out a pending change when really it shouldn’t have to. In addition, most databases don’t have this counter or timestamp and folks are resistant to adding a new field to all files for this purpose. Paul Holm Senior Web Architect PlanetJ Corp. Phone: 760-432-0600, Cell: 760-415-8830 WOW, Web Applications In Under 5 Minutes HYPERLINK "http://www.gotWebData.net"; \nhttp://www.gotWebData.net
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.
midrange.com
