I ran everything through the test_server "server" and get the following
results when using read_uncommitted=1
rc=[5] msg=[database is locked]
when performing a "client_step" against a prepared select
statement.
I'd really like to track this down and find out if my code is incorrect or if
I've hit a bug.
Thanks,
Ken
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ken wrote:
>
> My thought was that if i wanted to perform selects concurrently on SMP
> system I would need 2 threads and each thread would be able to read
> concurrently....
>
> I just don't see how this [test_server.c] improves concurrency...
>
It improves write concurrancy. One client can read from table A
at the same time another client is writing to table B. Or if
read_uncommitted is turned on, one client can read from table A
at the same time that another client is writing to th e same table.
--
D. Richard Hipp
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ken wrote:
>
> My thought was that if i wanted to perform selects concurrently on SMP
> system I would need 2 threads and each thread would be able to read
> concurrently....
>
> I just don't see how this [test_server.c] improves concurrency...
>
It improves write concurrancy. One client can read from table A
at the same time another client is writing to table B. Or if
read_uncommitted is turned on, one client can read from table A
at the same time that another client is writing to th e same table.
--
D. Richard Hipp
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
