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.
Obviously, there is plenty out there about MyISAM vs InnoDB engine selection, but I couldn’t find anything specific to JPA2.
Is it possible to use a MyISAM engine together with java persistence API, and still have transaction support? Or does it rely on the RDBMS to provide rollback / commit functionality?
Are there other (non-obvious) factors that need to be considered? What about @Cascade?
I found this posting, which makes a pretty good case for using transactional RDBMS backends.
I managed to reproduce the behaviour:
With MyISAM, the entity will remain created. With InnoDB, the entity is created, but then rolled back. So even though I haven’t been able to find something official, I am convinced that a transactional backend is required if one expects container-provided transactions to work.