<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://sqlblog.com/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Alexander Kuznetsov : Transactions, Transact SQL</title><link>http://sqlblog.com/blogs/alexander_kuznetsov/archive/tags/Transactions/Transact+SQL/default.aspx</link><description>Tags: Transactions, Transact SQL</description><dc:language>en</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2.1 SP2 (Build: 61129.1)</generator><item><title>Avoiding nested transactions might not improve performance.</title><link>http://sqlblog.com/blogs/alexander_kuznetsov/archive/2012/02/08/avoiding-nested-transactions-might-not-improve-performance.aspx</link><pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 18:09:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">21093a07-8b3d-42db-8cbf-3350fcbf5496:41577</guid><dc:creator>Alexander Kuznetsov</dc:creator><slash:comments>10</slash:comments><comments>http://sqlblog.com/blogs/alexander_kuznetsov/comments/41577.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>http://sqlblog.com/blogs/alexander_kuznetsov/commentrss.aspx?PostID=41577</wfw:commentRss><description>Beginning a transaction only when @@TRANCOUNT=0 might not improve performance at all. At least, I did not notice any difference whatsoever. No matter if I use this pattern: BEGIN TRAN ; -- (snip) COMMIT ; or a more complex one: DECLARE @trancount INT...(&lt;a href="http://sqlblog.com/blogs/alexander_kuznetsov/archive/2012/02/08/avoiding-nested-transactions-might-not-improve-performance.aspx"&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;img src="http://sqlblog.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=41577" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://sqlblog.com/blogs/alexander_kuznetsov/archive/tags/Transact+SQL/default.aspx">Transact SQL</category><category domain="http://sqlblog.com/blogs/alexander_kuznetsov/archive/tags/Transactions/default.aspx">Transactions</category></item><item><title>Using XACT_ABORT ON may be faster than using TRY...CATCH</title><link>http://sqlblog.com/blogs/alexander_kuznetsov/archive/2012/02/01/using-xact-abort-on-may-be-faster-than-using-try-catch.aspx</link><pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 22:25:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">21093a07-8b3d-42db-8cbf-3350fcbf5496:41497</guid><dc:creator>Alexander Kuznetsov</dc:creator><slash:comments>8</slash:comments><comments>http://sqlblog.com/blogs/alexander_kuznetsov/comments/41497.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>http://sqlblog.com/blogs/alexander_kuznetsov/commentrss.aspx?PostID=41497</wfw:commentRss><description>To ensure atomicity of transactions, we can use XACT_ABORT ON or wrap the transaction in TRY block and rollback in CATCH block. In some cases, the XACT_ABORT ON approach uses noticeably less CPU. I am posting repro scripts. Please run them, tweak them,...(&lt;a href="http://sqlblog.com/blogs/alexander_kuznetsov/archive/2012/02/01/using-xact-abort-on-may-be-faster-than-using-try-catch.aspx"&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;img src="http://sqlblog.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=41497" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://sqlblog.com/blogs/alexander_kuznetsov/archive/tags/Concurrency/default.aspx">Concurrency</category><category domain="http://sqlblog.com/blogs/alexander_kuznetsov/archive/tags/Data+Integrity/default.aspx">Data Integrity</category><category domain="http://sqlblog.com/blogs/alexander_kuznetsov/archive/tags/Transact+SQL/default.aspx">Transact SQL</category><category domain="http://sqlblog.com/blogs/alexander_kuznetsov/archive/tags/Transactions/default.aspx">Transactions</category></item></channel></rss>