Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
I am developing a set of applications that all hit the same database, and concurrency has been one of the biggest issues I’ve had to deal with.
I’m developing solutions to work around these issues, and I recently thought of using SQL queries instead of LINQ queries to update databases. Because SQL has pessimistic concurrency control, in terms of preventing concurrency issues, is this a good and simple solution to my LINQ concurrency woes?
Linq just passes SQL statements to SQL Server. So it could very well be sending SQL Server the same statements you would be generating. And besides, SQL Server uses optimistic concurrency. So I think you have other issues.