23.12.2015 01:36, Ann Harrison wrote: > Like I said, I have always kept transactions very short. I am > thinking of something like this instead: > > a) begin a transaction, update FIELD_1 of MYTABLE. > b) update FIELD_2 of MYTABLE. > c) update FIELD_3 of MYTABLE. > d) update FIELD_4 of MYTABLE. > e) update FIELD_5 of MYTABLE, COMMIT, and end transaction. > If something fails anywhere in between, I would ROLLBACK this single > transaction. > > That's not going to work either. Your first update will create a back > version that's just the difference between the old record state and the > new state. The second (or maybe third) will create a back version > that's the whole record (IIRC) - much larger and possibly off page.
Correct, but from another side third, fourth, etc updates will not create any new versions. May be worth checking whether a "heavy" second update could be better than creating a long version chain. Dmitry
