Lukas Barton said:
>
>>> - http://docs.rinet.ru/InforSmes/ch15/ch15.htm ( For an index, three
>>> more locks are necessary--one lock for the accessed row, one for the
>>> row
>>> before the accessed row, and one for the row after the accessed row)
>>>
>>
>> Which version of IDS does this refer to?
>>
>> In any event, I never realised I was this lucky before. <preen> Maybe
>> I'll
>> enter the Lottery this weekend.
>>
> I use IDS 10.0 on Windows.
> Here is statement sequention to demonstrate my problem:
>
> Thread1:
> UPDATE TABLE table1 SET col1=10 WHERE col2=15;
> .... further processing for 10 minutes....
>
>
> Thread2:
> SELECT * FROM TABLE table1 WHERE col2=20;
> (locked until thread1 finished).
>
>
> There is index on col1 and col2.

I can't see what why those rows should lock each other. Are you sure
you're using committed read, and can you post the explain plan for both
queries, please?

--
Bye now,
Obnoxio

"... no bill is required as no value was provided."
-- Christine Normile

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by OpenProtect(http://www.openprotect.com), and is
believed to be clean.