>
> Wrong. When Oracle says it's committed, it's committed. No
> difference between when, where, and how. In Oracle, the committed
> version is *always* the first presented to the user... it takes time
> to go back and look at older versions; but why shouldn't that be a bit
> slower, it isn't common practice anyway. Same with rollbacks... why
> should they optimize for them when 97% of transactions commit?
Do 97% of transactions commit because Oracle has slow rollbacks and
developers are working around that performance issue, or because they
really commit?
I have watched several developers that would prefer to issue numerous
selects to verify things like foreign keys in the application in
order to avoid a rollback.
Anyway, I don't have experience with big Oracle applications but I'm
not so sure that 97% of transactions would commit if rollbacks were
cheaper.