This content has been marked as final.
Show 4 replies
-
1. Re: Differences READ_COMMITTED vs REPEATABLE_READ
manik Mar 25, 2009 8:39 AM (in response to zeravlai)Hibernate has a first level cache in it's session. Which will provide you with R_R regardless of how your second level cache is configured.
-
2. Re: Differences READ_COMMITTED vs REPEATABLE_READ
zeravlai Mar 25, 2009 1:05 PM (in response to zeravlai)Thanks for the info Manik,
so, then, given the tree structure of the cache and the R_R isolation level, would it be possible to fall into a phantom read anomaly (considering the JPA/Hibernate) ? -
3. Re: Differences READ_COMMITTED vs REPEATABLE_READ
zeravlai Mar 25, 2009 3:06 PM (in response to zeravlai)Also Manik, in "mvcc-entity" predefined cache config, there's a comment saying that READ_COMMITTED is as strong as neccesary for most 2nd level cache use cases. What's the meaning of this sentence bearing in mind your reply ?
Thanks again. -
4. Re: Differences READ_COMMITTED vs REPEATABLE_READ
manik Mar 26, 2009 5:50 AM (in response to zeravlai)"zeravlai" wrote:
Also Manik, in "mvcc-entity" predefined cache config, there's a comment saying that READ_COMMITTED is as strong as neccesary for most 2nd level cache use cases. What's the meaning of this sentence bearing in mind your reply ?
R_C is (slightly) more efficient that R_R in our MVCC implementation. This is why I recommend it for Hibernate, since Hibernate provides R_R anyway through its first level cache.