Yes. Also, are you sure you mean deadlock ? It sounded like this is just a simple lock conflict and not a deadlock. The first transaction could be blocked on something else (even tho it's not ally short and quick ). Lock requests are in a queue
On Mon, 9 Dec 2024, 21:16 Eric Schwarzenbach, <subscri...@blackbrook.org> wrote: > Hi, > > Could one transaction (one that should be relatively simple and short) > cause another complex, long running transaction (involving INSERTS, on a > table the first transaction may be reading from) to take many orders of > magnitude longer than it would normally? (short of competing for system > resources, like CPU time etc, of course) > > I don't believe my scenario involved a deadlock but I expect my short > transaction was probably blocked by my long one. Does it make any sense > that this could very significantly affect the performance of the > non-blocked transaction? > > Thanks, > > Eric > > > > >
