12/19/2023 0 Comments Oracle vs sql server deadlock control![]() MS SQL DB supports of using nolock option. SQL Server allows you to control which transaction is more likely to be rolled back during a deadlock situation via the DEADLOCKPRIORITY session variable. Transaction wise, is there any diferent behaviour for JDBC adapter with Oracle DB & MS SQL DB. According to the Oracle documentation, the transaction that detected the deadlock is the one whose statement will be rolled back. If we use NO_Transaction type for JDBC Polling, what will be the functionality wise difference with implicit Local transaction ? To describe consistent transaction behavior when transactions run at the same time, database researchers have defined a. means that each user sees a consistent view of the data, including visible changes made by the users own transactions and transactions of other users. Is JDBC polling holds lock at the row level or table level ? if locks is at table level, then it prevent any concurrent transactions to insert/ modify data in the same buffer table from the End system. Data concurrency means that many users can access data at the same time. We are getting deadlock issue while Polling is in active mode & to troubleshoot further we need below information: The JDBC conection with MSSQL 2000 DB is defined as “LOCAL_TRANSACTION” type & wM is doing implicit transaction Mark ID Column field ) as ‘y’ to mark it as processed. ![]() ![]() The main differences are summarized in the table below and further explained in the following sections. ![]() Oracle and SQL Server 2000 differ greatly in their implementation of concurrency control. We are using WM JDBC Polling (Basic Notification) to pick up data from buffer table with an interval of 60 sec & update status flag (i.e. by one user do not adversely affect those made by other users. We have an existing integration with MSSQL 2000. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |