Is CR#625189 fixed in 11.0.1.3158, or not?

[Breck_Carter]

The readme files for earlier EBFs mention Engineering Case #625189, but that CR was OMITTED from the readme for 11.0.1.3158.

Was the fix removed or replaced by something else? It is very important to a client with that symptom currently on 11.0.1.2436.

http://download.sybase.com/swr/14650/rdme_1101_ebf_2587.html

 ================(Build #2447  - Engineering Case #625189)================

    Repeatedly inserting and deleting rows with long strings may have lead to 
    unconstrained database growth. This was more likely to occur if the server 
    was continually under heavy load. In 11.x servers, snapshot isolation must 
    have been enabled for this problem to have occurred. This has now been corrected.

SQL Anywhere Bug Fix Readme for Version 11.0.1, build 2960.htm

================(Build #2447  - Engineering Case #625189)================

    Repeatedly inserting and deleting rows with long strings may have lead to 
    unconstrained database growth. This was more likely to occur if the server 
    was continually under heavy load. In 11.x servers, snapshot isolation must 
    have been enabled for this problem to have occurred. This has now been corrected.

SQL Anywhere Bug Fix Readme for Version 11.0.1, build 3158.htm

- Engineering Case #625189 not found -

[jason_noack · Accepted solution]

I'm not sure what's going on for you but I can see that item in the readme file you mentioned. I can confirm that it is fixed in that build.

[Breck_Carter · Accepted solution]

The file named ReadMe_EBF.html located inside SA11_Full_Win32+x64.1101_3158_EBF.exe which is located inside the downloadable EBF23111.zip does in fact include CR 625189... so that answers my question... THANK YOU!

However, to answer the unspoken question regarding my SANITY :), the attached standalone file "SQL Anywhere Bug Fix Readme for Version 11.0.1, build 3158.htm" which was downloadable separately from EBF23111.zip, does NOT contain CR 625189.

[Former Member]

It's supposed to be included. From all sources I can verify this from I have no reason to believe it was ever backed out and it is in the copies of the ReadMe you should have.

Maybe an accidental edit was involved? {mentioned by one who suffers from a bad case of MDND (MouseDragNDropItis)}

[Breck_Carter]

Thanks... the issue suddenly became less fraught when it was realized that snapshot isolation was not required in this particular context... it is AMAZING what turning it off did for performance, not just disk and CPU but storage bloat... methinks snapshot isolation was a [mutter cough mumble] work in progress back in those days 🙂

[justin_willey]

Are you seeing a difference with Snapshot Isolation in v16?

[Breck_Carter]

No... I have not seen any unexpected snapshot isolation performance issues in V16... many years have passed since the feature was introduced (10.0.0 in 2006).

However, note the careful use of the word "unexpected"... any time someone says they are considering it, my knee-jerk reaction is "don't" 🙂