Re: coding for no blocking or deadlocks.
From: John Bell (jbellnewsposts_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 03/13/04
- Next message: David Portas: "Re: SQL month riddle - most efficient way?"
- Previous message: David Portas: "Re: SQL month riddle - most efficient way?"
- In reply to: mannie: "coding for no blocking or deadlocks."
- Next in thread: Andrew John: "Re: coding for no blocking or deadlocks."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 07:53:03 GMT
Hi Mannie
It sounds like you are not using stored procedures. If you controlled your
updates through these, you should be able to write re-usable code and the
problem should not happen.
John
"mannie" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C9EB3BC2-0682-4443-B286-D17B46E4FD5E@microsoft.com...
> Ok, Can someone give me an example answer to how you are suppost to update
2 tables in a transaction without causeing blocking.
>
> proc 1
> Begin Transaction
> Update table 1
> update table 2
> end
>
> proc 2
> begin transaction
> update table 2
> update table 1
> end
>
> This causes blocking, I need to do these things without the blocking.
>
> Help is sooooooo appreciated.
- Next message: David Portas: "Re: SQL month riddle - most efficient way?"
- Previous message: David Portas: "Re: SQL month riddle - most efficient way?"
- In reply to: mannie: "coding for no blocking or deadlocks."
- Next in thread: Andrew John: "Re: coding for no blocking or deadlocks."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|