Row cannot be located for updating some values may


Because each command is affecting only a predetermined row, letting it see the updated version of the row does not create any troublesome inconsistency.

More complex usage can produce undesirable results in Read Committed mode.

The point at issue above is whether or not a command sees an absolutely consistent view of the database.

The partial transaction isolation provided by Read Committed mode is adequate for many applications, and this mode is fast and simple to use; however, it is not sufficient for all cases.

, you can request any of the four standard transaction isolation levels.

If the first updater commits, the second updater will ignore the row if the first updater deleted it, otherwise it will attempt to apply its operation to the updated version of the row.(This is hardly surprising -- if the effect of the transactions must be consistent with having been run one at a time, how could you see any phenomena caused by interactions?) The phenomena which are prohibited at various levels are: A transaction re-executes a query returning a set of rows that satisfy a search condition and finds that the set of rows satisfying the condition has changed due to another recently-committed transaction.The reason that only provides three isolation levels is that this is the only sensible way to map the standard isolation levels to the multiversion concurrency control architecture.The behavior of the available isolation levels is detailed in the following subsections.For example, consider a , which no longer matches the criteria.

You must have an account to comment. Please register or login here!