SQL transactions is used for insert, update, but should it be used for reading records?
Share
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.
SQL transactions is used for insert, update, but should it be used for reading records?
If you are querying all the records in a single query, and pulling them back in one go, there is no need. Everything is wrapped up in an implicit transaction. That is to say, even if you get back one million records, and even if other processes are changing the records, you’ll see what all one million records looked like at the same point in time.
The only times you would really need a transaction (and, often, a specific locking hint) in a read only process are:
– You read the records “piece-meal” and need nothing else to alter the values while you itterate though. [Such as a connected recordset in ADO that you then cursor through.]
– You read some data, do some calculations, then read some related data, but on the assumption nothing changed in the mean time.
In short, you need transactions when you want other processes to be stopped from interfering with your data between SQL statements.