Re: row vs row.column level locking

"NetComrade" <netcomradeNSPAM_at_bookexchange.net> wrote in message news:43a30aee.270110453_at_localhost...
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 01:58:57 GMT, Mladen Gogala <gogala_at_sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 19:03:20 +0000, NetComrade wrote:
> >
> >> I feel different processes should be able to update different columns
> >> w/o blocking each other, as long as what's updated is not the PK.
> >
> >Why do you feel that?
>
> Why not? Let's say i have a table within a web application that has
> fields that are updatable by end-user and and fields updatable by a
> batch job. Currently I have to denormalize and separate the two
> tables, so that user won't block batch and vice versa. If I have
> multiple batch jobs running at different times I might have to do even
> more separation (if the batch jobs are taking too long)...
>
> No-one clearly explained to me why not to have such a feature. The
> main reason I can think of is that Oracle would have to do much more
> work to track changes for 'read-consistency'
>
> .......
> We run Oracle 9.2.0.6 on RH4 AMD
> remove NSPAM to email

The database can't know if columns in the same table should be allowed to be treated as if they aren't related to one another. Hence the row level lock and not a row and column (or cell) level lock. If they weren't related to one another then they would be in separate tables. Jim Received on Fri Dec 16 2005 - 23:23:58 CST