I am doing a concurrency test in sql server 2019, I have SQLTest tool that runs concurrent queries, in my test I am using one single SELECT query (star schema) and on SSMS I have while loop that updates fact table records. while running both process I am seeing some of the threads/queries cancelled because of deadlock, which is expected but the option that I am looking or is there a possibility to add a wait time on my select before deadlock? in other words how much time SQL server waits before it creates deadlock error.
In this case I know constant updates are happening but we know that updates are for a fewer seconds so if SQL server can wait for some seconds before creating deadlock.
any suggestions or thoughts ?
I would suggest changing up your testing strategy a little.
Within your test harness, I would SET DEADLOCK_PRIORITY LOW;, so that when a deadlock is detected, your testing process voluntarily takes one for the team, allows itself to become the deadlock victim, and allows the conflicting process to continue.
Then, wrap the testing script in a TRY...CATCH. In the CATCH clause, check to see if the cause of the error is a deadlock (error code 1205), and if it is, retry your test. It's probably a good idea to also build a incremental counter into that so that you don't end up in an infinite deadlock loop.
is there a possibility to add a wait time on my select before deadlock?
No. It would make no sense.
A deadlock is defined as a dead end of locking, which will not, under no circumstrances, be fixed by simply waiting. One of the sides has to cancel.
I.e.
Tx1 has lock on table a, waits for lock on table b
Tx2 has lock on table b, waitf for lock on table a
Normally SQL Server waits (timeout) and cancels. In this case the deadlock detection steps up and realizes that no, unless a side is thrown out there is no way this gets resolved, so - it cancels one side. There is no waiting, because this is actually a programming bug. No joke.
Up there, Tx2 should FIRST ask for a lock on table a. It is good practice to get locks in a transaction in a defined order so this does not happen.
Related
I am new to SQL Server, but am having a fair knowledge of simple things like select/update/delete and other transaction. I am facing a dead lock scenario in my application. I have understood the scenario as many threads are parallel trying to run a set of update operations. Its is not a single update but a set of update operations.
I have understood that this cannot be avoided in my application as many people want to do a update simultaneously. So I want to have a manual lock system. First the thread 1 should check if the manual lock is available and then start the transaction. Mean while if the second thread requests for the lock it should be busy and hence the second thread should wait. Once the first is completed the second should acquire the lock and start with the transaction.
This is just a logic i have thought about. But I do not have any idea of how to do this in SQL Server. Are there any examples which can help me. Please let me know if you can give me some sample sql scripts or links that will be helpful for me. Thank you for your time and help.
You probably mean "semaphore". That is, something to serialise execution of the DML to only one process can run at a time.
This is native in SQL Server using sp_getapplock
You can configure 2nd processes to wait or fail when they call sp_getapplock, and also it can be self-cancelling in "transaction" mode.
You will still most likely end up in the same scenario. Having a dead lock based around your tailor made locks. SQL Server internally implements a very robust locking mechanism. You should use it.
The problem you're having is that resources (tables, indexes, etc.) are accessed (or modified) in a conflicting order by different transactions/threads.
If you create your own locking mechanism, you may end up with a dead lock just the same. Example:
Thread 1 creates a lock on Customer record
Thread 2 creates a lock on Order record
Thread 1 attempts to create a lock on Order record (but cannot proceed due to step 2)
Thread 2 attempts to create a lock on Customer record (but cannot proceed due to step 3)
Voila ... deadlock
The solution is to refactor the way resources are accessed, so records are always accessed in the same order and the problem will go away.
Thread 1 creates a lock on Customer record
Thread 2 attempts to create a lock on Customer record (but cannot proceed due to step 1)
Thread 1 creates a lock on Order record
Thread 1 completes transaction and unlocks both Order and Customer records
Thread 2 creates a lock on Customer record
Thread 2 creates a lock on Order record
Also, have a look here to read how locking can happen on a single table.
You manual Lock system sounds interesting but you need to aware that it will sacrifice concurrency, which is quite important for many OLTP application.
Advance db like Oracle and SQL server is quite good in avoiding dead lock and give you the tool to resolve dead lock, which help you just kill the session that cause the dead lock and let the other query finish it's job first.
Microsoft Has documentation which can be find here.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/832524
Beside, there are many other reasons that could lead to deadlock. You can find some example here. how to solve deadlock problem?
So as I understand it, SQL deadlocks happen when a SPID is busy processing another query and it can't be bothered to run another one because it's so busy right now. The SQL Server "randomly" picks one of the queries to deadlock out of the resources asked for and fails it out, throwing an exception.
I have an app running ~ 40 instances and a back-end Windows Service, all of which are hitting the same database. I'm looking to reduce deadlocks so I can increase the number of threads I can runs simultaneously.
Why can't SQL Server just enqueue the new query and run it when it has time and the resources are available? Most of what I'm doing can wait a few seconds on occasion.
Is there a way to set Transaction Isolation Level globally without having to specify it at the onset of each new connection/session?
Your understanding of deadlocks is not correct. What you've described is blocking. It's a common mistake to equate the two.
A deadlock occurs when two separate transactions each want different resources and neither will release the one that they have so that the other can run. It's probably easier to illustrate:
SPID #1 gets a lock on resource A
SPID #2 gets a lock on resource B
SPID #1 now needs a lock on resource B in order to complete
SPID #2 now needs a lock on resource A in order to complete
SPID #1 can't complete (and therefor release resource A) because SPID #2 has it
SPID #2 can't complete (and therefor release resource B) because SPID #1 has it
Since neither SPID can complete one has to give up (i.e. be chosen by the server as the deadlock victim) and will fail.
The best way to avoid them is to keep your transactions small (in number of resources needed) and quick.
Deadlock is where two threads of processing are both being held up by the other ( it can be more, but two is sufficiently complex ). So one thread locks a table, then requests a lock on another table. the other table is locked by the second thread, which cannot progress because it is waiting for a lock on the first table.
The reason that one of these has to be thrown out is that in a deadlock, they will never end - neither thread can progress at all. The only answer is for one to be stopped to allow the other to complete.
The solution to reducing deadlocks in the sort of situation you are talking about may be to redesign the solution. If you can make sure that less locking occurs, you will have less deadlocks.
Deadlocks occurs because, two concurrent transactions may overlap e lock different resources, both required by the other transaction to finish.
Let's imagine:
1 - Transaction A locks row1
2 - Transaction B locks row2
3 - Transaction A tries to lock row1, and, because of the previous lock, SQL server waits
4 - Transaction B tries to lock row2, and, because of the previous lock, SQL server waits
So, SQL server must choose on transaction, kill it, and allow the other to continue.
This image ilustrates this situation very well: http://www.eupodiatamatando.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/deadlocknajkcomafarialibh3.jpg
I'm looking for something similiar to an SQL transaction. I need the usual protections that transactions provide, but I don't want it to slow down anyone else.
Imagine client A connects to the DB and runs these commands:
BEGIN TRAN
SELECT (something)
(Wait a few seconds maybe.)
UPDATE (something)
COMMIT
Inbetween the SELECT and the UPDATE, client B comes along and attempts to do a query, that under normal circumstances, would end up having to wait for A to COMMIT.
What I'd like is for client A to open it's transaction in such a way that should B come along and perform it's query, client A will find it's transaction immediately rolled back and it's subsequent commands failing. Client B would only experience minimal delay.
(Note that the SELECT and UPDATE are simply illustrative commands.)
Update...
I've got a high priority task (client B) that sometimes (once a month-ish) gets an SQL timeout error, and a low priority task (client A) with a transaction which causes that timeout. I'd rather that the low priority task fails and is reattempted in the next cycle.
I ended up fixing this problem by eliminating the transactions entirely and replacing them with an informal set of flags. The queries were refactored to only do something if the right set of flags are raised and I added something that cleared up abandoned records that the rollback would have cleared in the past.
I fixed my transaction issues by eliminating transactions.
Using SNAPSHOT isolation level will prevent B from blocking. B will see data in the state they were before A issued BEGIN TRANSACTION. Unless B modifies data, they will never block each other.
While not a transaction at all, Optimistic Concurrency may be useful -- it is used by default in LINQ2SQL, etc.
The general idea is that the data is read -- modifications can be independently made -- and then the data written back with a "check" (this is loosely comparable to a Compare and Swap). If the check fails it is up the application to decide what to do (restart the process, proceed anyway, fail).
This naturally doesn't work for all scenarios and may not detect a number of interactions, such as new items added between the "read" and "write". Both the actual read and write can be in separate transactions with the appropriate isolation level; the separate transactions may allow additional transactions to be interleaved.
Of course, depending upon the exact problem and interactions... different isolation levels and/or finer grained locking may be sufficient.
Happy coding.
That is back to front.
You can't have later clients aborting earlier transactions: that's chaos.
You can have snapshot isolation so that client B has a consistent view and isn't blocked (mostly) by client A. Also Wikipedia for more general stuff
Perhaps describe your problem more fully so we can offer suggestions for that...
One thing that I've seen used (but I'm afraid that I don't have any code handy for it) is having transaction A spawn another process which then monitors the transaction. If it sees any blocks caused by the transaction then it immediately issues a KILL to the spid.
If I can find the code for this then I'll add it here.
We've got a web-based application. There are time-bound database operations (INSERTs and UPDATEs) in the application which take more time to complete, hence this particular flow has been changed into a Java Thread so it will not wait (block) for the complete database operation to be completed.
My problem is, if more than 1 user comes across this particular flow, I'm facing the following error thrown by PostgreSQL:
org.postgresql.util.PSQLException: ERROR: deadlock detected
Detail: Process 13560 waits for ShareLock on transaction 3147316424; blocked by process 13566.
Process 13566 waits for ShareLock on transaction 3147316408; blocked by process 13560.
The above error is consistently thrown in INSERT statements.
Additional Information:
1) I have PRIMARY KEY defined in this table.
2) There are FOREIGN KEY references in this table.
3) Separate database connection is passed to each Java Thread.
Technologies
Web Server: Tomcat v6.0.10
Java v1.6.0
Servlet
Database: PostgreSQL v8.2.3
Connection Management: pgpool II
One way to cope with deadlocks is to have a retry mechanism that waits for a random interval and tries to run the transaction again. The random interval is necessary so that the colliding transactions don't continuously keep bumping into each other, causing what is called a live lock - something even nastier to debug. Actually most complex applications will need such a retry mechanism sooner or later when they need to handle transaction serialization failures.
Of course if you are able to determine the cause of the deadlock it's usually much better to eliminate it or it will come back to bite you. For almost all cases, even when the deadlock condition is rare, the little bit of throughput and coding overhead to get the locks in deterministic order or get more coarse-grained locks is worth it to avoid the occasional large latency hit and the sudden performance cliff when scaling concurrency.
When you are consistently getting two INSERT statements deadlocking it's most likely an unique index insert order issue. Try for example the following in two psql command windows:
Thread A | Thread B
BEGIN; | BEGIN;
| INSERT uniq=1;
INSERT uniq=2; |
| INSERT uniq=2;
| block waiting for thread A to commit or rollback, to
| see if this is an unique key error.
INSERT uniq=1; |
blocks waiting |
for thread B, |
DEADLOCK |
V
Usually the best course of action to resolve this is to figure out the parent objects that guard all such transactions. Most applications have one or two of primary entities, such as users or accounts, that are good candidates for this. Then all you need is for every transaction to get the locks on the primary entity it touches via SELECT ... FOR UPDATE. Or if touches several, get locks on all of them but in the same order every time (order by primary key is a good choice).
What PostgreSQL does here is covered in the documentation on Explicit Locking. The example in the "Deadlocks" section shows what you're probably doing. The part you may not have expected is that when you UPDATE something, that acquires a lock on that row that continues until the transaction involved ends. If you have multiple clients all doing updates of more than one thing at once, you'll inevitably end up with deadlocks unless you go out of your way to prevent them.
If you have multiple things that take out implicit locks like UPDATE, you should wrap the whole sequence in BEGIN/COMMIT transaction blocks, and make sure you're consistent about the order they acquire locks (even the implicit ones like what UPDATE grabs) at everywhere. If you need to update something in table A then table B, and one part of the app does A then B while the other does B then A, you're going to deadlock one day. Two UPDATEs against the same table are similarly destined to fail unless you can enforce some ordering of the two that's repeatable among clients. Sorting by primary key once you have the set of records to update and always grabbing the "lower" one first is a common strategy.
It's less likely your INSERTs are to blame here, those are much harder to get into a deadlocked situation, unless you violate a primary key as Ants already described.
What you don't want to do is try and duplicate locking in your app, which is going to turn into a giant scalability and reliability mess (and will likely still result in database deadlocks). If you can't work around this within the confines of the standard database locking methods, consider using either the advisory lock facility or explicit LOCK TABLE to enforce what you need instead. That will save you a world of painful coding over trying to push all the locks onto the client side. If you have multiple updates against a table and can't enforce the order they happen in, you have no choice but to lock the whole table while you execute them; that's the only route that doesn't introduce a potential for deadlock.
Deadlock explained:
In a nutshell, what is happening is that a particular SQL statement (INSERT or other) is waiting on another statement to release a lock on a particular part of the database, before it can proceed. Until this lock is released, the first SQL statement, call it "statement A" will not allow itself to access this part of the database to do its job (= regular lock situation). But... statement A has also put a lock on another part of the database to ensure that no other users of the database access (for reading, or modifiying/deleting, depending on the type of lock). Now... the second SQL statement, is itself in need of accessing the data section marked by the lock of Statement A. That is a DEAD LOCK : both Statement will wait, ad infinitum, on one another.
The remedy...
This would require to know the specific SQL statement these various threads are running, and looking in there if there is a way to either:
a) removing some of the locks, or changing their types.
For example, maybe the whole table is locked, whereby only a given row, or
a page thereof would be necessary.
b) preventing multiple of these queries to be submitted at a given time.
This would be done by way of semaphores/locks (aka MUTEX) at the level of the
multi-threading logic.
Beware that the "b)" approach, if not correctly implemented may just move the deadlock situation from within SQL to within the program/threads logic. The key would be to only create one mutex to be obtained first by any thread which is about to run one of these deadlock-prone queries.
Your problem, probably, is the insert command is trying to lock one or both index and the indexes is locked for the other tread.
One common mistake is lock resources in different order on each thread. Check the orders and try to lock the resources in the same order in all threads.
In my client application I have a method like this (in practice it's more complex, but I've left the main part):
public void btnUpdate_Click(...)
{
...
dataAdapter.Update(...);
...
dataAdapter.Fill(...); // here I got exception one time
}
The exception I found in logs says "Deadlock found when trying to get lock; try restarting transaction". I met this exception only time, so it wasn't repeated.
As I understand, DataAdapter.Fill() method executes only select query. I don't make an explicit transaction and I have autocommit enabled.
So how can I get dead lock on a simple select query which is not a part of bigger transaction?
As I understand, to get a dead lock, two transactions should wait for each other. How is that possible with a single select not inside a transaction? Maybe it's a bug in MySql?
Thank you in advance.
You are right it takes two transactions to make a deadlock. That is to say, No statement or statements within a single transaction can deadlock with other statements within the same transaction.
But it only take one transaction to notice a report of a deadlock. How do you know that the transaction you are seeing the deadlock reported in is the only transaction being executed in the database? Isn't there other activity going on in this database?
Also. your statement "I don't make an explicit transaction", and "... which is not a part of bigger transaction" implies that you do not understand that every SQL statement executed is always in an implicit transaction, even if you do not explicitly start one.
Most databases have reporting mechanisms specifically designed to track, report and/or log instances of deadlocks for diagnostic purposes. In SQL server there is a trace flag that causes a log entry with much detail about each deadlock that occurs, including details about each of the two transactions involved, like what sql statements were being executed, what objects in the database were being locked, and why the lock could not be obtained. I'd guess mySQL has similar disgnostic tool. Find out what it is and turn it on so that the next time this occurs you can look and find out exactly what happened.
You can deadlock a simple SELECT against other statements, like an UPDATE. On my blog I have an example explaining a deadlock between two well tunned statements: Read/Write deadlock. While the example is SQL Server specific, the principle is generic. I don't have enough knowledge of MySQL to claim this is necessarily the case or not, specially in the light of various engines MySQL can deploy, but none the less a simple SELECT can be the victim of a deadlock.
I haven't looked into how MySQL transaction works, but this is based on how MSSQL transactions work:
If you are not using a transaction, each query has a transaction by itself. Otherwise you would get a mess every time an update failed in the middle.
The reason for the deadlock might be lock escalation. The database tries to lock as little as possible for each query, so it starts out by locking only the single rows affected. When most of the rows in a page is locked by the query it might decide that escalating the lock into locking the entire page would be better, which may have the side effect of locking some rows not otherwise affected by the query.
If a select query and an update query are trying to escalate locks on the same table, they may cause a deadlock eventhough only a single table is involved.
I agree that in this particular issue this is unlikely to be the issue but this is supplemental to the other answers in terms of limiting their scope, recorded for posterity in case someone finds it useful.
MySQL can in rare cases have single statements periodically deadlock against themselves. This seems to happen particularly on bulk inserts and the issues are almost certainly a deadlock between different threads relating to the operation. I would expect bulk updates to have the same problem. In the past when faced with this sort of issue I have generally just cut down on the number of rows being inserted (or updated) in a single statement. You won't usually get a deadlock when trying to obtain the lock in this case but other messages.
A colleague of mine and I were discussing similar problems in MS SQL Server (so this is not unique to MySQL!) and he pointed out that the solution there is to tell the server not to parallelize the insert or update. The problems here are spinlock-related deadlocks, not logical lock deadlocks in the RDBMS.