Icon View Thread

The following is the text of the current message along with any replies.
Messages 1 to 5 of 5 total
Thread What is the safest way to update a set of Batch transactions?
Wed, May 17 2006 8:21 AMPermanent Link

Allan brocklehurst
Hi.
Stats D7
       v 4.24
       C/S application

I’m enhancing an application that updates several files with data in
“Batch mode”.  This will now be done during working hours.  Prior to
this all “Batch mode” updates were processed overnight. I’m updating the
target tables with straight file processing.

Currently:
The users have only read capabilities on the data.
The data is served to them via SQL statements.

Because of this “live” data update, I’m concerned that the process will
crash if I send in a record that is currently in use.  BTW, I have to
replace any existing records with a new record. That is deleting all
detail records and adding new ones.

So what would be the safest solution for this?

I was thinking that I set the “request live” to false on the above SQL
statements?  That’s all I got!

Allan
Wed, May 17 2006 10:05 AMPermanent Link

Roy Lambert

NLH Associates

Team Elevate Team Elevate

Allan


Go for transactions and keep the batch sizes as small as possible so that it doesn't take to long.

Roy Lambert
Wed, May 17 2006 10:19 AMPermanent Link

Allan brocklehurst
Roy Lambert wrote:
> Allan
>
>
> Go for transactions and keep the batch sizes as small as possible so that it doesn't take to long.
>
> Roy Lambert
>
Roy; Hi and Thanks. I'll do the research and use your suggestion.

Allan
Wed, May 17 2006 4:04 PMPermanent Link

Tim Young [Elevate Software]

Elevate Software, Inc.

Avatar

Email timyoung@elevatesoft.com

Allan,

Roy is correct - use small batches of transactions and just update the
tables in-place.  Because the users can't even edit records, then there
won't be any record lock conflicts to deal with.

--
Tim Young
Elevate Software
www.elevatesoft.com

Thu, May 18 2006 7:14 AMPermanent Link

Allan brocklehurst
Tim Young [Elevate Software] wrote:
> Allan,
>
> Roy is correct - use small batches of transactions and just update the
> tables in-place.  Because the users can't even edit records, then there
> won't be any record lock conflicts to deal with.
>
Thanks again Tim and Roy. The record-locking was the rub on this one

Allan
Image