Hi Group
While I'm fully aware that there are transations and that stuff like
this should be left to the server administration tools etc. I'm still
facing the problem of writing a middle ware where the existing,
unchangeabel upper layer application want's to get exclusive access
over a complete table and I have to emulate this behaviour in my
module. I figure I could select the complete table in a transaction to
do so, but I have a feeling that this might be pretty slow? Or is such
an apraoch sufficently fast? What better alternatives do I have?
TIA
MarkusWhat exactly are you trying to achieve?
Lock a table inside a transaction? Use locking hints or serializable
isolation level.
We can't give you an accurate answer to a vague question.
ML
http://milambda.blogspot.com/|||On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 15:47:12 +0200, Markus Zingg wrote:
>Hi Group
>While I'm fully aware that there are transations and that stuff like
>this should be left to the server administration tools etc. I'm still
>facing the problem of writing a middle ware where the existing,
>unchangeabel upper layer application want's to get exclusive access
>over a complete table and I have to emulate this behaviour in my
>module. I figure I could select the complete table in a transaction to
>do so, but I have a feeling that this might be pretty slow? Or is such
>an apraoch sufficently fast? What better alternatives do I have?
Hi Markus,
Check out the TABLOCK and HOLDLOCK update hints. They might be what
you're after.
(I assume that you *are* aware that implementing this instantly kills
any chance of ever scaling your app, are yoou?)
Hugo Kornelis, SQL Server MVPsql
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment