db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "David W. Van Couvering" <David.Vancouver...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: [jira] Commented: (DERBY-690) Add scrollable, updatable, insensitive result sets
Date Thu, 02 Mar 2006 18:55:31 GMT
I can't say I've been following the entire thread, but I would like to 
support Øystein's points of this being a reasonable use case.  Dan's 
comment below had me scratching my head, but I didn't have the time or 
energy to respond at the time :)

I thought insensitive result sets were just that - insensitive to 
changes in database state.  It seems this should be true regardless of 
whether the changes are caused by an update via another transacation or 
by a trigger.  And I think Øystein's right there is value in such a use 

I have no idea, however, whether the use case Øystein describes is 
consistent with JDBC spec...


Øystein Grøvlen wrote:
> Daniel John Debrunner (JIRA) wrote:
>>     [ 
>> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-690?page=comments#action_12367999 
>> ]
>> Daniel John Debrunner commented on DERBY-690:
>> ---------------------------------------------
>> Andreas wrote:
>> --- quote
>> True. This would also be the situation if:
>> * The ResultSet selects a,b
>> * Another statement updates column a on a row
>> * The ResultSet updates column b on the same row
>> After this, the ResultSet does not reflect the changes made by the 
>> other statement, (column a would be the same as it initially was) and 
>> it does not reflect a state for the row which ever existed on the 
>> database.
>> --end quote
>> Agreed, it's the same issue in my mind, and allowing such a row in a 
>> ResultSet would be wrong. I believe after an update the row in the 
>> ResultSet must reflect the state of the row in the database. Hence, 
>> like Oracle, Derby should perform the equivalent of a refreshRow.
> I do not agree with you here.  I think you are mixing result sets and 
> database state.  I think the whole point of an insensitive result set is 
> that it should not be affected by changes to the database state.  The 
> question of visibility of own changes, becomes much clearer if we are 
> not talking about visibility of changes to the database, but changes to 
> the result set.
> One use of an insensitive result set would be an application where one 
> displays the result of a query in a table.  The user is allowed to 
> navigate in the table and change individual cell values.  The 
> application uses an insensitive result set because it does not want the 
> rows to change ones the table has been populated.  When the application 
> changes a cell, the result set is updated.  It makes sense to make these 
> changes to the result set visible.  Otherwise, it may seem to a user 
> that his updates are lost when he scrolls back up to a row he has 
> previously updated.  However, it does not make sense to me that in order 
> to achieve this, the application must accept that changes made by others 
> also become visible.
> If some application wants the behavior you suggest, then we could make 
> it possible for them to explicitly call refreshRow.  I do not understand 
> why we should make it mandatory.  However, I also do not understand how 
> providing refreshRow for insensitive result sets can be compatible with 
> the JDBC standard.
> I also do not think how the result set is established is relevant for 
> this discussion.  As you say the JDBC spec allows both for result sets 
> to reflect the database state at a certain time and for results sets 
> that are built over time.  This means that what happens to a record 
> before it becomes visible to the user of the result set is not very 
> relevant.
> With respect to triggers, you only seem to be concerned with changes 
> made by triggers to the row that is updated.  I cannot see that it is 
> more wrong to show an inconsistent column value than to show 
> inconsistencies between rows (e.g., the result set contains two rows 
> that due to trigger actions could not possibly exist in the database 
> concurrently.)  As far as I can see, in order to be able to guarantee 
> that a result set shows all effects triggered by an update to the result 
> set, it would be necessary to refresh the entire result set on each 
> update.  That sounds like a sensitive result set to me.
> In my opinion, another advantage of just showing the actual changes to 
> the result set and not the database state, is that this behavior is easy 
> to explain and easy for a user to understand.
> -- 
> Øystein

View raw message