Re: Read only transactions - Commit or Rollback

afaik, this should be completely neglectable.

starting a transaction implies write access. if there is none, You do not need to think about transactions, because there are none.

postgres needs to schedule the writing transactions with the reading ones, anyway.

But I am not that performance profession anyway ;-)

regards,
Marcus

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: pgsql-performance-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
[mailto:pgsql-performance-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org]Im Auftrag von Markus
Schaber
Gesendet: Dienstag, 20. Dezember 2005 11:41
An: PostgreSQL Performance List
Betreff: [PERFORM] Read only transactions - Commit or Rollback

Hello,

We have a database containing PostGIS MAP data, it is accessed mainly
via JDBC. There are multiple simultaneous read-only connections taken
from the JBoss connection pooling, and there usually are no active
writers. We use connection.setReadOnly(true).

Now my question is what is best performance-wise, if it does make any
difference at all:

Having autocommit on or off? (I presume "off")

Using commit or rollback?

Committing / rolling back occasionally (e. G. when returning the
connection to the pool) or not at all (until the pool closes the
connection)?

Thanks,
Markus

--
Markus Schaber | Logical Tracking&Tracing International AG
Dipl. Inf. | Software Development GIS

Fight against software patents in EU! www.ffii.org www.nosoftwarepatents.org

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend