AnsweredAssumed Answered

Performance of "READ_ONLY" transactions

Question asked by davidraines on Jun 11, 2017
Latest reply on Jun 12, 2017 by afaust

In Alfresco, do "READ_ONLY" transactions have better performance than "READ_WRITE" transactions?

Does Afresco use any faster caching behavior when processing READ_ONLY transactions?

 

We are looking to improve the performance of our application, and we've noticed that a decent percentage of our WebScripts only read data, and never write it.  Notionally, they could be specified as "READ_ONLY" transactions.

 

Is that going to be faster?  When I read about transaction management in other systems (Java, JDBC, Hibernate, different databases) the answer is "Its complicated."  In some systems, a "read only" transaction is designed to improve the "correctness" of read operations, not to make them run faster.

 

I've read some of the Alfresco source code.  I can see that READ_ONLY transactions enforce that you can't do a write operation.  But I don't see anything obvious that they'll be faster... I know that Alfresco has an "optimistic locking" model, so its not as if a "READ_WRITE" actually blocks unless a WRITE occurs.

 

We run our Alfresco on Oracle databases, if that makes a difference.

 

Has anyone investigated this?

Outcomes