| List: | General Discussion | « Previous MessageNext Message » | |
| From: | Robert DiFalco | Date: | September 17 2007 9:22pm |
| Subject: | Rollback on a Transaction with No Updates | ||
| View as plain text | |||
Is there any difference between calling rollback or commit on a transaction that did not alter data? For example, not a read-only transaction but a transaction that only performed read-only selects. Any difference in performance between calling rollback or commit? I know they are functionally the same at the high level.
| Thread | ||
|---|---|---|
| • Rollback on a Transaction with No Updates | Robert DiFalco | 17 Sep |
| • Re: Rollback on a Transaction with No Updates | Baron Schwartz | 17 Sep |
| • RE: Rollback on a Transaction with No Updates | Robert DiFalco | 17 Sep |
| • Re: Rollback on a Transaction with No Updates | Michael Dykman | 17 Sep |
| • RE: Rollback on a Transaction with No Updates | Robert DiFalco | 18 Sep |
| • Re: Rollback on a Transaction with No Updates | Michael Dykman | 18 Sep |
| • RE: Rollback on a Transaction with No Updates | Robert DiFalco | 18 Sep |
| • Re: Rollback on a Transaction with No Updates | Baron Schwartz | 19 Sep |
