begin transaction in a sp or not

Hey. I've SQL 2000 ent. ed. right now. The application is vb .net and it
doesn't handle transactions at all. We'll be moving to SQL 2005 soon but dont
know when. I know I can use Try...Catch in SQL 2005 to do transactions or
actually handle it form the application.
My question is, should I use 'BEGIN TRANSACTION' in a sp or it automatically
runs as a transaction? Thank youIf you want transactional control, then you have to include all data
modification operations inside BEGIN TRAN and COMMIT TRAN. The stored
procedure by itself will not run as a transaction. You have to check for
errors after each data modification operation and decide wheter to continue
or rollback transaction. @.@.TRANCOUNT also comes in handy while handling
transactions. See SQL Server Books Online for more information.
--
HTH,
Vyas, MVP (SQL Server)
SQL Server Articles and Code Samples @. http://vyaskn.tripod.com/
"tpp" <tpp@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AB989028-45EE-4D6E-A346-C16C08227C31@.microsoft.com...
> Hey. I've SQL 2000 ent. ed. right now. The application is vb .net and it
> doesn't handle transactions at all. We'll be moving to SQL 2005 soon but
> dont
> know when. I know I can use Try...Catch in SQL 2005 to do transactions or
> actually handle it form the application.
> My question is, should I use 'BEGIN TRANSACTION' in a sp or it
> automatically
> runs as a transaction? Thank you|||Try catch has nothing to do with if a transaction is used or not.Whether you
wrap your sp code in a transaction or not depends on what you are doing with
it. If it only does a single insert, update or delete then there is little
point to it. If you modify multiple tables and need them to be
transactionally consistant that is a different story. You might want to have
a looka t this:
http://www.sommarskog.se/error-handling-I.html
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"tpp" <tpp@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AB989028-45EE-4D6E-A346-C16C08227C31@.microsoft.com...
> Hey. I've SQL 2000 ent. ed. right now. The application is vb .net and it
> doesn't handle transactions at all. We'll be moving to SQL 2005 soon but
> dont
> know when. I know I can use Try...Catch in SQL 2005 to do transactions or
> actually handle it form the application.
> My question is, should I use 'BEGIN TRANSACTION' in a sp or it
> automatically
> runs as a transaction? Thank you|||First, TRY...CATCH, in itself, has nothing to do with a TRANSACTION. In SQL
2005, TRY...CATCH allows efficient code management to determine if parts of
the TRANSACTION succeed or fail. And you can use a TRANSACTION in SQL 2000.
You are best served by limiting TRANSACTION to stored procedures ONLY when
transaction control is required for the business needs.
Not every action requires a TRANSACTION. A 'set' of actions (several
INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE statements) that need to be 'all or nothing' should be
explicitly designated to execute in the context of a TRANSACTION.
You may wish to read more about TRANSACTIONs in Books on Line.
--
Arnie Rowland
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"tpp" <tpp@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AB989028-45EE-4D6E-A346-C16C08227C31@.microsoft.com...
> Hey. I've SQL 2000 ent. ed. right now. The application is vb .net and it
> doesn't handle transactions at all. We'll be moving to SQL 2005 soon but
> dont
> know when. I know I can use Try...Catch in SQL 2005 to do transactions or
> actually handle it form the application.
> My question is, should I use 'BEGIN TRANSACTION' in a sp or it
> automatically
> runs as a transaction? Thank you|||"tpp" <tpp@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AB989028-45EE-4D6E-A346-C16C08227C31@.microsoft.com...
> Hey. I've SQL 2000 ent. ed. right now. The application is vb .net and it
> doesn't handle transactions at all. We'll be moving to SQL 2005 soon but
> dont
> know when. I know I can use Try...Catch in SQL 2005 to do transactions or
> actually handle it form the application.
> My question is, should I use 'BEGIN TRANSACTION' in a sp or it
> automatically
> runs as a transaction? Thank you
Tranactions scoping is part of the busness logic of the applciation, and
should be implemented wherever the business logic lives. Limiting
transactions to inside stored procedures doesn't work if the application
needs to compose multiple stored procedure invocations into a single atomic
business operation.
David|||To add to the other responses, I suggest you specify SET XACT_ABORT ON when
the application is oblivious to explicit transactions in stored procedures.
This will automatically rollback the transaction and abort the batch in most
cases and avoid problems related to an open transaction following a command
timeout.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"tpp" <tpp@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AB989028-45EE-4D6E-A346-C16C08227C31@.microsoft.com...
> Hey. I've SQL 2000 ent. ed. right now. The application is vb .net and it
> doesn't handle transactions at all. We'll be moving to SQL 2005 soon but
> dont
> know when. I know I can use Try...Catch in SQL 2005 to do transactions or
> actually handle it form the application.
> My question is, should I use 'BEGIN TRANSACTION' in a sp or it
> automatically
> runs as a transaction? Thank you