ado.net - Why does Azure Database perform better with transactions -


we decided use micro-orm against azure database. our business needs "inserts" , "selects", decided suppress code-managed sqltransaction (no concurrency issues on data).

then, noticed our instance of azure database responded slowly. "rpc completed" event occured in delays hundreds times time needed run simple sql statement.

next, benchmarked our code ef6 , saw server responded quickly. ef6 implements built-in transaction, decided restore sqltransaction (readcommited) on micro-orm , noticed fine.

does azure database require explicit sqltransaction (managed code) ? how sqltransaction influence azure database performances ? why implemented way ?

edit : going post more precise information way collected traces. seems our azure events logs express in nanoseconds, in milliseconds. seems weird.

if understand asking correctly, batching multiple sql queries 1 transaction give better results on dbs. committing after every insert/update/delete has huge overhead on dbs not designed (like myisam on mysql).

it can cause bad flushes disk , thrashing if much. once had programmer committing thousands of entries 1 of dbs every minute, each own transactions, , brought server halt.

innodb, 1 of 2 popular database formats mysql, can commit 20-30 transactions second (or maybe 2-3... it's been long time), each flushed disk @ end acid compliance.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

sublimetext3 - what keyboard shortcut is to comment/uncomment for this script tag in sublime -

java - No use of nillable="0" in SOAP Webservice -

ubuntu - Laravel 5.2 quickstart guide gives Not Found Error -