jeff_j_dunlap wrote:

> "Doug Chamberlin" wrote in message
>> Try changing your test to start a transaction and commit it each time.
>> Should run quite fast.
>
> I would definitely do this if I were inserting, updating or deleting.
> But is a new transaction and commit necessary for read-only access mode /
> read committed isolation?
> In my testing, creating a new transaction and
> statement
> was noticably slower. In both cases, I did not experience memory
> leaks and
> the data returned was accurate.

I'm quite surprised your testing has shown it to make that much difference.

> But if it is required to create a
> transaction and commit it for read-only transactions, I will do it.

No, it is not necessary. In general, it is not good practice to keep any
transaction active for any longer than it needs to complete its work.
However, you have a special case that you have researched and tested
thoroughly, so stick with what you have found to work.

You have already tapped into the best authorities on this subject, so
nothing I say should dissuade you.