On Jan 5, 2004, at 1:57 PM, Stephan Szabo wrote:
> But, if he's updating the fk table but not the keyed column, it should
> no
> longer be doing the check and grabbing the locks. If he's seeing it
> grab
> the row locks still a full test case would be handy because it'd
> probably
> mean we missed something.
>
I'm not *sure* it is taking any locks. The transactions appear to be
running lock step (operating on different parts of the same pair of
tables) and I was going to see if deferring the locks made the
difference. It is my feeling now that it will not. However, if there
is a way to detect if locks are being taken, I'll do that. I'd like to
avoid dropping and recreating the foreign keys if I can since it takes
up some bit of time on the table with 20+ million rows.
Vivek Khera, Ph.D.
+1-301-869-4449 x806
