Re: Best way to increase concurrency when using adopenstatic ?
- From: "Paul Baker" <paulb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:13:08 -0500
I am not expert on SQL Server, but I thought I would try to help since noone
else did.
None of this makes sense to me, which is why I want to go to the source. If
you don't have that, we're guessing.
Paul
"Ian Ippolito" <IanIppolito@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:065DDE50-64E0-4C7B-A165-D326BBF19A2F@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Paul,
What type of lock does it supposedly hold? I don't understand how moving
to
the last record will affect locks,
Do you have a reference to this article?
Unfortunately I can't find the article in my browser cache. But the
article
claimed that in SQL 7.0 a static recordset held a lock on each record as
it
is iterated through with .MoveNext. It didn't specfy the lock type but
that
said that concurrency problems can result because these locks are only
released when the very last record is arrived at. The fix it recommended
was
to go to the last record in the recordset to release the locks and
increase
concurrency (perhaps to avoid possible lock esclalation as each record has
a
.MoveNext done to it? This is a guess/interpretation...the article did
not
mention lock esclation). Do you know if this is true in SQL 2005?
Ian
.
- References:
- Re: Best way to increase concurrency when using adopenstatic ?
- From: Paul Baker
- Re: Best way to increase concurrency when using adopenstatic ?
- Prev by Date: Re: Best way to increase concurrency when using adopenstatic ?
- Next by Date: Re: Cannot add new to a empty table by using IADORecordBinding interfa
- Previous by thread: Re: Best way to increase concurrency when using adopenstatic ?
- Next by thread: Re: Cannot add new to a empty table by using IADORecordBinding interfa
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|