I believe that rollbacks do not get cleared from the TIP (transaction
information page?) until you do a sweep. Now I don't know exactly what the
exact effect of this is (e.g. garbage collection stops short of clearing all
possible back versions), but the net effect is that the oldest transaction
does not move forward until you do a sweep.

If the difference between your oldest transaction and your current
transaction is too great then performance will degrade (I currently have a
DB that the difference between oldest and active = 59,000,000).

We don't do sweeps at the moment as I can not get clarification that the
sweep bug (5.x) was solved for 5.6. I posted a question about this a month
or so ago (ann, paul...).

I emphasise "I believe" - already this week I have got it wrong in the forum
(15,2).

From this I deduce that commits are "better" than rollbacks if you don't
regularly sweep the database.


JAC.

> On Thursday 2002-02-14 at 09:06:49 +0800, Frank Wang wrote:
> Don't know the tehnicalities, but I've heard COMMIT is supposed to be
> better (must be to do with housekeeping, as someone mentioned).