On 8/25/06, Jeremy Dunck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 8/24/06, bradford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > it's actually going to be thousands of sql queries for each user. > > would doing it all in one object lock out all of the users for the > > entire time the "magic" is being done (until it is updated)? > > That depends on your database's transaction isolation level. > > > >
I think you need to re-examine your requirement. The overhead of creating hundreds of temporary tables per user will have severe repercussions in your database. Never mind the other operations in each transaction. I'd suggest you think about what you're trying to achieve and come up with a simpler solution. As Jeremy has indicated most modern databases have decent levels of isolation allowing several transactions write access to a single table and that is likely to be were you should look. As a rule of thumb, if your transaction relies on the creation, population and eventual dropping of a temporary table then the chances are that you are doing something wrong. Regards, Andy -- >From the desk of Andrew J Todd esq --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
