When I attempt to delete a view in Serverless Pool Database from SSMS Version 18.4 I get the following error:
Lock request time out period exceeded Error:1222
Can someone let me know how to overcome this issue?
Lock request time out period exceeded Error:1222
A query waits longer than the lock timeout setting, as shown by the error message "lock request time out period exceeded" (error 1222). The lock timeout parameter controls the amount of time, in milliseconds, that a query must wait before returning an error on a blocked resource.
SELECT * FROM sys.dm_exec_sessions where open_transaction_count=1;
The above query obtains active transaction information for the current database using sys.dm_exec_sessions view.
Then kill that process using the following command.
Kill 129
Make sure that every BEGIN TRANSACTION contains a COMMIT command to avoid this.
The following will indicate success but leave transactions uncommitted:
BEGIN TRANSACTION
BEGIN TRANSACTION
--SQL_CODE?
COMMIT
Closing query windows with uncommitted transactions will prompt you to commit your transactions.
Related
SQL Snapshot replication is failing due to this message:
Message: Execution Timeout Expired. The timeout period elapsed prior to completion of the operation or the server is not responding.
Command Text: SELECT TOP 1 0 FROM [dbo].[tablename] WITH (TABLOCK, HOLDLOCK)
I'm not quite sure where to start finding this issue. I've searched Google and SO, I didn't find anything that helps me get to the bottom of this. Is this just an issue with a table either being locked or not locked when it should be?
Questions/Answers:
What part of the process fails, creating a snapshot or the log reader? The error is in creating the snapshot.
Is the error in the replication monitor and is the source the publisher or subscriber? The error is in the replication monitor and it is the publisher.
Desired Result:
No error, snapshot replication not timing out.
Thank you.
In my vb application i have a query that updates one column in a table.
But because of the fact that the property for this database lock mode is
SET LOCK MODE TO NOT WAIT
sometimes when running query with update I get errors like this:
SQL ERR: EIX000: (-144) ISAM error: key value locked
EIX000: (-245) Could not position within a file via an index. (informix.table1)
My question is , is it safe to execute:
1st SET LOCK MODE TO WAIT;
2nd the update query;
3rd SET LOCK MODE TO NOT WAIT;
Or you can point me to other solution if this is not safe
It is "safe" to do the three operations as suggested, but …
Your application may block for an indefinite time while the operation runs.
If you terminate the query somehow but don't reset the lock mode, other parts of your code may get hung on locks unexpectedly.
Consider whether a wait with timeout is appropriate.
Each thread, if there are threads, should have exclusive access to one connection for the duration of the three operations.
Please help me with this, I execute
ALTER TABLE MY_TABLE DATA CAPTURE NONE;
ALTER TABLE MY_TABLE ALTER MY_COLUMN DROP NOT NULL;
but then I have the followed error:
SQL State: 57007
Vendor Code: -910
Message: [SQL0910] The MY_TABLE object type * FILE MY_SCHEMA has a pending change.
Cause . . . . . : The MY_TABLE object has a
pending change made under commitment control is preventing this
operation. You may have produced one of the following circumstances:
This application process has performed an operation on this object
under commitment control. The transaction is not committed. The
application process is now trying to change the same object using the
commitment control level of * NONE.
A different process application
has performed an operation on this object under commitment control.
The transaction is not committed.
This application process has
performed an operation on this object under commitment control using a
different definition of commitment. The transaction is not committed.
This application process has performed an operation on this object under commitment control. The transaction is not committed.
You can not change the table until commit or roll back the changes.
Retrieval. Do one of the following and retry the request:
If your application
process issued the uncommitted operation, run a COMMIT or ROLLBACK
before attempting any other operation on this object, or issue the
statement from a program using a commitment control level other than *
NONE.
If the application process that issued the uncommitted
operation on this object is not to your application, then that
application process must perform a COMMIT or ROLLBACK.
If the
application process issued the uncommitted operation using a different
definition of commitment, issue a COMMIT or ROLLBACK to the definition
of commitment.
Issue COMMIT or ROLLBACK before attempting an ALTER
TABLE statement on this subject.
Please help me!!
The condition indicates that prior work under commitment control was pending; either awaiting normal COMMIT or ROLLBACK, or that the prior processing was interrupted and the job has ended without being able to clean up the commit definition. There would have been prior messages logged in the joblog to inform more of the condition than what the sqlcode=-910 and the msg SQL0910 can reveal; the spooled joblog would have revealed, most likely the prior msg CPF325E with the activation group and logical unit of work, preceded by a msg CPF70A6 with a reason code. Without the spooled joblog, and reviewing for such previously logged messages, the origin is unlikely to be learned; however there is the option to use the Work With Commitment Def[initions] (WRKCMTDFN) [with the option to search all jobs], and as already mentioned, to review the journal for what transactions were requested but never committed.
If origin by an interrupted process that no longer exists, the IPL will run a journal/commit/database recovery phases in the SCPF joblog [for which that IPL-time job has the joblog spooled after the system-portion of the IPL completes; i.e. looking at the active SCPF joblog is of no help], and messaging logged to QSYSOPR and/or QHST [see DSPLOG QHST for both, in addition to the spooled QPJOBLOG from the SCPF job for the IPL after the issue].
If the problem were to persist after an IPL, then the Reclaim Storage (RCLSTG) for *ALL [optionally omitting anything else; though best not to omit *DBXREF for which a lost DB change may be manifest later as an error when re-creating or otherwise performing work on the database file for which there were prior errors/recovery activity -- though if omitted on the SELECT(*ALL) request, a second request could be to just RCLSTG SELECT(*DBXREF).
Note: There have been past defects whereby work not performed under commitment control has incorrectly left a file in recovery with an indication that prior work was done under commitment control; the effect is little different, than a different message identifier, such that in both cases the file pending work is protected from other change activity. Interrupted work outside of those running under isolation are permitted to be deleted, for example with Delete File (DLTF) or DROP TABLE -- errors logged during the request are ignored by the DB, but be careful to review the messaging for conditions indicating a possible issue pending being encountered, such as that the member was not deleted, which means that a replacement for the file irrespective of create, restore, or add member will fail. Such difficulties are likely to be resolved only by contacting a service provider.
Why below error comes?
System.Data.SqlClient.SqlException Timeout expired. The timeout period elapsed prior to completion of the operation or the server is not responding
You should normally try to write fast sql (<100ms) otherwise your application will be sluggish for the end users.
If your server reply in time when you send the request manually,
There may be a read lock on a table and the second query keep on waiting for the read lock to end before processing.
In that case try to add WITH(NOLOCK) or WITH(READUNCOMMITTED) to your select statement.
Acccording to your situation and err msg, I think it may be caused by mainly two reasons:
Long running tasks：In default SQL Connection will wait for 30 seconds, but over this time, if you still cannot connect to the db, the kind of error will be thrown out.
For the second reason, that there might be an uncommitted transaction.
Of course, you should Close Connnection at a time when you don't want to use it (using…… statement is recommanded)
See more about this kind of issue, you can refer to:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/spike/archive/2008/07/31/timeout-expired-the-timeout-period-elapsed-prior-to-completion-of-the-operation-or-the-server-is-not-responding.aspx
My project use dbml to access database with linq to sql. It uses transaction at several operation which is required.
As the database is growing I face the following errors:
Timeout expired. The timeout period elapsed prior to completion of the operation or the server is not responding.
Transaction (Process ID 82) was deadlocked on lock | communication buffer resources with another process and has been chosen as the deadlock victim. Rerun the transaction
There are thousands of linq queries spread over the project. So I can not put TransactionSope code to all select queries as it is time consuming.
Is there any way so i can set default Transaction IsolationLevel in dbml so that it reads uncommitted and do not get in deadlock.
Please let me know if you have any questions on the issue.
Following call before query execution should work ..
dataContext.ExecuteCommand("SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL READ UNCOMMITTED")
You can execute this once after initialising the dataContext
OR
Implement an Extension method which calls datacontext ExecuteCommand once for setting transaction isolation level as above and then once for actual command execution.