I agree to FredrikJ.
I can use read uncommitted because I have other db lock mechanism for
concurrent running. I need use db lock because the application is in distribute
systems.
Read uncommitted led to no block when read.
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb
We use repeatable read and read uncommitted (different caches). We use
read_uncommitted only to ensure a reader is never blocked. If read_committed
would always allow read then we would be happy using that instead.
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&
To those who use READ_UNCOMMITTED - do you use this as a feature? If we
provided a READ_COMMITTED implementation that performed as well, and dropped
support for READ_UNCOMMITTED, how would this impact you?
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=41171