Re: Re:Transactions

Hi 
There is no need for explicitly  locking rows as these
get locked when any update is fired but not committed
on the table.Please note that only those rows get
locked that are updated and not the entire table.

Sudesh

 --- tadta <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi
> 
>     thanks for reply
>     i guess locking the table will decrease the
> performance
>     can we do explicitly row level locking
>     In my project we have many different
> transactions to take place
>     simultaneously . different transactions for
> different purposes
>     use the some of same tables. hence i have doubt
> about deadlock
>     We are now using jsp and servlets.
>     Does using EJB help in performancing many
> transactions 
> simultaneously better than servlets and jsp . Or it
> has the same
> deadlock problem and same performance as servlet and
> jsp   
>           
> 
> 
> --- In EJB-Developer@y..., "sudesh_1"
> <sudesh_1@y...> wrote:
> > Hi
> > 
> > Lock both tables explicitly first in both
> transactions in same 
> order 
> > and then update.
> > 
> > For example
> > 
> > transaction1
> > commit = false
> > lock table1
> > lock table2
> > update table1
> > update table2
> > commit = true
> > 
> > 
> > transaction2
> > commit = false
> > lock table1
> > lock table2
> > update table2
> > update table1
> > commit = true
> > 
> > 
> > Hope this solves your problem
> > 
> > Sudesh
> 
> 
>  

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com