Miha
Fri Jun 09 15:33:04 CDT 2006
And you might also consider using ReaderWriterLock as your locking mechanism
in case you have many reads and few writes.
--
Miha Markic [MVP C#]
RightHand .NET consulting & development www.rthand.com
Blog:
http://cs.rthand.com/blogs/blog_with_righthand/
<paul@swindell.com> wrote in message
news:1149867603.511603.66840@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> OK thanks.
>
> Paul
>
> Miha Markic [MVP C#] wrote:
>
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>> I would lock at DataTable level as row update might affect internals
>> (index,
>> etc.).
>> Note that I am not 100% sure whether this is enough.
>>
>> --
>> Miha Markic [MVP C#]
>> RightHand .NET consulting & development www.rthand.com
>> Blog:
http://cs.rthand.com/blogs/blog_with_righthand/
>>
>> <paul@swindell.com> wrote in message
>> news:1149783863.387679.170350@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I have an C# app which uses a Dataset which contains multiple
>> > DataTables as an in memory database. (Currently the dataset is not
>> > connected to a database.)
>> >
>> > The app is multi threaded and adds/update rows in the various tables.
>> > Currently I lock the Dataset on each modification - but am I locking at
>> > the right (most efficent) level? Could I just lock at the DataTable or
>> > even just the row? or can I do without locks?
>> >
>> > TIA
>> >
>> > swin
>> >
>