Prevent other sessions from reading data until I'm finished
I have a table that holds customers from different companies, something like:
CUSTOMER
CUSTOMER_ID
COMPANY_ID
CUSTOMER_NAME
FOO_CODE
When I insert or update a customer I need to calculate a FOO_CODE based on existing ones (within the company).
If I simply do this:
SELECT MAX(FOO_CODE) AS GREATEST_CODE_SO_FAR
FROM CUSTOMER
WHERE COMPANY_ID=:company_id
... then generate the code in the client language (PHP) and finally issue the INSERT/UPDATE I understand I can face a race condition if other program instance fetches the same GREATEST_CODE_SO_FAR.
Is it possible to issue a row-level lock on the table so other sessions that attempt to read the FOO_CODE column of any customer that belongs to a given company are delayed until I commit or rollback my transaction?
My failed attemps:
This:
SELECT MAX(FOO_CODE)
FROM CUSTOMER
WHERE COMPANY_ID=:company_id
FOR UPDATE
... triggers:
ORA-01786: FOR UPDATE of this query expression is not allowed
This:
SELECT FOO_CODE
FROM CUSTOMER
WHERE COMPANY_ID=:company_id
FOR UPDATE
... retrieves all company rows and does not even prevent other sessions from reading data.
LOCK TABLE... well, documentation barely has any example and I can't figure out the syntax
P.S. Is it not an incrementing number, it's an alphanumeric string.
You can't block another session from reading data, as far as I'm aware. One of the differences between Oracle and some other databases is that writers don't block readers.
I'd probably look at this slightly differently. I'm assuming the way you generate the next foo_code is deterministic. If you add a unique index on company_id, foo_code then you can have your application attempt the insert in a loop:
get your current max value
calculate your new code
do the insert
if you don't get a constraint violation, break out of the loop
otherwise continue to the next iteration of the loop and repeat the process
If two sessions attempt this at the same time then the second one will attempt to insert the same foo_code and will get a unique constraint violation. That is trapped and handled nicely and it just tries again; potentially multiple times until it gets a clean insert.
You could have a DB procedure that attempts the insert in a loop, but since you want to generate the new value in PHP then it would make sense for the loop to be in PHP too, attempting a simple insert.
This doesn't necessarily scale well if you have a high volume of inserts and clashes are likely. But if you're expecting simultaneous inserts for the same customer to be rare and just have to handle the odd occasions when it does happen this won't add much overhead.
Related
Context: I am a long-time MSSQL developer... What I would like to know is how to implement a read-only-once select from SAP HANA.
High-level pseudo-code:
Collect request via db proc (query)
Call API with request
Store results of the request (response)
I have a table (A) that is the source of inputs to a process. Once a process has completed it will write results to another table (B).
Perhaps this is all solved if I just add a column to table A to avoid concurrent processors from selecting the same records from A?
I am wondering how to do this without adding the column to source table A.
What I have tried is a left outer join between tables A and B to get rows from A that have no corresponding rows (yet) in B. This doesn't work, or I haven't implemented such that rows are processed only 1 time by any of the processors.
I have a stored proc to handle batch selection:
/*
* getBatch.sql
*
* SYNOPSIS: Retrieve the next set of criteria to be used in a search
* request. Use left outer join between input source table
* and results table to determine the next set of inputs, and
* provide support so that concurrent processes may call this
* proc and get their inputs exclusively.
*/
alter procedure "ACOX"."getBatch" (
in in_limit int
,in in_run_group_id varchar(36)
,out ot_result table (
id bigint
,runGroupId varchar(36)
,sourceTableRefId integer
,name nvarchar(22)
,location nvarchar(13)
,regionCode nvarchar(3)
,countryCode nvarchar(3)
)
) language sqlscript sql security definer as
begin
-- insert new records:
insert into "ACOX"."search_result_v4" (
"RUN_GROUP_ID"
,"BEGIN_DATE_TS"
,"SOURCE_TABLE"
,"SOURCE_TABLE_REFID"
)
select
in_run_group_id as "RUN_GROUP_ID"
,CURRENT_TIMESTAMP as "BEGIN_DATE_TS"
,'acox.searchCriteria' as "SOURCE_TABLE"
,fp.descriptor_id as "SOURCE_TABLE_REFID"
from
acox.searchCriteria fp
left join "ACOX"."us_state_codes" st
on trim(fp.region) = trim(st.usps)
left outer join "ACOX"."search_result_v4" r
on fp.descriptor_id = r.source_table_refid
where
st.usps is not null
and r.BEGIN_DATE_TS is null
limit :in_limit;
-- select records inserted for return:
ot_result =
select
r.ID id
,r.RUN_GROUP_ID runGroupId
,fp.descriptor_id sourceTableRefId
,fp.merch_name name
,fp.Location location
,st.usps regionCode
,'USA' countryCode
from
acox.searchCriteria fp
left join "ACOX"."us_state_codes" st
on trim(fp.region) = trim(st.usps)
inner join "ACOX"."search_result_v4" r
on fp.descriptor_id = r.source_table_refid
and r.COMPLETE_DATE_TS is null
and r.RUN_GROUP_ID = in_run_group_id
where
st.usps is not null
limit :in_limit;
end;
When running 7 concurrent processors, I get a 35% overlap. That is to say that out of 5,000 input rows, the resulting row count is 6,755. Running time is about 7 mins.
Currently my solution includes adding a column to the source table. I wanted to avoid that but it seems to make a simpler implement. I will update the code shortly, but it includes an update statement prior to the insert.
Useful references:
SAP HANA Concurrency Control
Exactly-Once Semantics Are Possible: Here’s How Kafka Does It
First off: there is no "read-only-once" in any RDBMS, including MS SQL.
Literally, this would mean that a given record can only be read once and would then "disappear" for all subsequent reads. (that's effectively what a queue does, or the well-known special-case of a queue: the pipe)
I assume that that is not what you are looking for.
Instead, I believe you want to implement a processing-semantic analogous to "once-and-only-once" aka "exactly-once" message delivery. While this is impossible to achieve in potentially partitioned networks it is possible within the transaction context of databases.
This is a common requirement, e.g. with batch data loading jobs that should only load data that has not been loaded so far (i.e. the new data that was created after the last batch load job began).
Sorry for the long pre-text, but any solution for this will depend on being clear on what we want to actually achieve. I will get to an approach for that now.
The major RDBMS have long figured out that blocking readers is generally a terrible idea if the goal is to enable high transaction throughput. Consequently, HANA does not block readers - ever (ok, not ever-ever, but in the normal operation setup).
The main issue with the "exactly-once" processing requirement really is not the reading of the records, but the possibility of processing more than once or not at all.
Both of these potential issues can be addressed with the following approach:
SELECT ... FOR UPDATE ... the records that should be processed (based on e.g. unprocessed records, up to N records, even-odd-IDs, zip-code, ...). With this, the current session has an UPDATE TRANSACTION context and exclusive locks on the selected records. Other transactions can still read those records, but no other transaction can lock those records - neither for UPDATE, DELETE, nor for SELECT ... FOR UPDATE ... .
Now you do your processing - whatever this involves: merging, inserting, updating other tables, writing log-entries...
As the final step of the processing, you want to "mark" the records as processed. How exactly this is implemented, does not really matter.
One could create a processed-column in the table and set it to TRUE when records have been processed. Or one could have a separate table that contains the primary keys of the processed records (and maybe a load-job-id to keep track of multiple load jobs).
In whatever way this is implemented, this is the point in time, where this processed status needs to be captured.
COMMIT or ROLLBACK (in case something went wrong). This will COMMIT the records written to the target table, the processed-status information, and it will release the exclusive locks from the source table.
As you see, Step 1 takes care of the issue that records may be missed by selecting all wanted records that can be processed (i.e. they are not exclusively locked by any other process).
Step 3 takes care of the issue of records potentially be processed more than once by keeping track of the processed records. Obviously, this tracking has to be checked in Step 1 - both steps are interconnected, which is why I point them out explicitly. Finally, all the processing occurs within the same DB-transaction context, allowing for guaranteed COMMIT or ROLLBACK across the whole transaction. That means, that no "record marker" will ever be lost when the processing of the records was committed.
Now, why is this approach preferable to making records "un-readable"?
Because of the other processes in the system.
Maybe the source records are still read by the transaction system but never updated. This transaction system should not have to wait for the data load to finish.
Or maybe, somebody wants to do some analytics on the source data and also needs to read those records.
Or maybe you want to parallelise the data loading: it's easily possible to skip locked records and only work on the ones that are "available for update" right now. See e.g. Load balancing SQL reads while batch-processing? for that.
Ok, I guess you were hoping for something easier to consume; alas, that's my approach to this sort of requirement as I understood it.
Let's say I have the following psuedocode:
SELECT count(*) FROM users WHERE email = 'bob#gmail.com'
>>>> MARKER A
if (count > 0) return;
else INSERT INTO users VALUES ('bob#gmail.com')
So essentially only insert the email if it doesn't exist already. I understand there's probably some sort of INSERT IF NOT EXISTS query I could use, but let's say we use this example.
So if the code above runs on thread A, and thread B actually inserts 'bob#gmail.com' into users at MARKER A, then thread A has "stale data" and will try to insert 'bob#gmail.com', thinking the count is still 0, but in fact it is now 1. This will error out since we have a unique index on the email.
What is the tool I should use to prevent this issue? From my reading about transactions, they basically make a set of operations atomic, so the code above will execute completely or not at all. It will NOT ensure the users table is locked against updates correct? So I can't just wrap the code above in a transaction and make it thread-safe?
Should I implement application-level locking? Should I ensure that when this operation occurs, it must acquire the lock to access the users table so that no other thread can make changes to it? I feel that locking the entire table is a performance hit I want to avoid.
Checking before inserting is a known anti-pattern on multi-threaded applications. Do not even try it.
The right way of doing it is letting the database take care of it. Add a UNIQUE constraint on the column, as in:
alter table users add constraint uq1 unique(email);
Just try to insert the row in the database. If it succeeds, all is good; if it fails, then some other thread has alreay inserted the row.
Alternatively, you could issue a LOCK on the whole table. That would also work, but the performance of your application would become horrible.
This question already has answers here:
Only inserting a row if it's not already there
(7 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
I have a DB table with a field that must be unique. Let's say the table is called "Table1" and the unique field is called "Field1".
I plan on implementing this by performing a SELECT to see if any Table1 records exist where Field1 = #valueForField1, and only updating or inserting if no such records exist.
The problem is, how do I know there isn't a race condition here? If two users both click Save on the form that writes to Table1 (at almost the exact same time), and they have identical values for Field1, isn't it possible that the following would happen?
User1 makes a SQL call, which performs the select operation and determines there are no existing records where Field1 = #valueForField1. User1's process is preempted by User2's process, which also finds no records where Field1 = #valueForField1, and performs an insert. User1's process is allowed to run again, and inserts a second record where Field1 = #valueForField1, violating the requirement that Field1 be unique.
How can I prevent this? I'm told that transactions are atomic, but then why do we need table locks too? I've never used a lock before and I don't know whether or not I need one in this case. What happens if a process tries to write to a locked table? Will it block and try again?
I'm using MS SQL 2008R2.
Add a unique constraint on the field. That way you won't have to SELECT. You will only have to insert. The first user will succeed the second will fail.
On top of that you may make the field autoincremented, so you won't have to care on filling it, or you may add a default value, again not caring on filling it.
Some options would be an autoincremented INT field, or a unique identifier.
You can add a add a unique constraint. Example from http://www.w3schools.com/sql/sql_unique.asp:
CREATE TABLE Persons
(
P_Id int NOT NULL UNIQUE
)
EDIT: Please also read Martin Smith's comment below.
jyparask has a good answer on how you can tackle this specific problem. However, I would like to elaborate on your confusion over locks, transactions, blocking, and retries. For the sake of simplicity, I'm going to assume transaction isolation level serializable.
Transactions are atomic. The database guarantees that if you have two transactions, then all operations in one transaction occur completely before the next one starts, no matter what kind of race conditions there are. Even if two users access the same row at the same time (multiple cores), there is no chance of a race condition, because the database will ensure that one of them will fail.
How does the database do this? With locks. When you select a row, SQL Server will lock the row, so that all other clients will block when requesting that row. Block means that their query is paused until that row is unlocked.
The database actually has a couple of things it can lock. It can lock the row, or the table, or somewhere in between. The database decides what it thinks is best, and it's usually pretty good at it.
There is never any retrying. The database will never retry a query for you. You need to explicitly tell it to retry a query. The reason is because the correct behavior is hard to define. Should a query retry with the exact same parameters? Or should something be modified? Is it still safe to retry the query? It's much safer for the database to simply throw an exception and let you handle it.
Let's address your example. Assuming you use transactions correctly and do the right query (Martin Smith linked to a few good solutions), then the database will create the right locks so that the race condition disappears. One user will succeed, and the other will fail. In this case, there is no blocking, and no retrying.
In the general case with transactions, however, there will be blocking, and you get to implement the retrying.
I would like to implement id generator to be able to have unique records identification for multiple tables and be able to assign id to structures of new records formed on client side.
Usually obvious and standard answer is Guid, but I want to use int because of space efficiency and human readability.
It's ok to have gaps in id sequence - which will happen with unfinished transactions, lost client connections and so on.
For implementation I would have a table Counters with field NextId int and increment that counter any time id is requested. I may increment that id by more than 1 when I need range of ids for multiple or bulk inserts.
To avoid locking bottlenecks when updating Counters table I need to make id requests atomic and outside of any other transactions. So my question is how to do that ?
It's not a problem on application level - it can make one atomic transaction request to get pool of ids and then use those ids in another bigger transaction to insert records.
But what do I do if I want to get new ids inside Stored Procedure or Trigger ?
If I wrap that update Counter set NextId=NextId+1 table request into nested transaction begin tran ... commit tran it's not going to exclude it from locking until outer big transaction ends.
Is there any way to exclude that one Sql statement from current transaction so that locking ends right when statement ends and it does not participate in rollback if outer transaction is rolled back.
You need to use a second connection. You cannot have multiple transactions at once per connection.
I have got a table which has an id (primary key with auto increment), uid (key refering to users id for example) and something else which for my question won’t matter.
I want to make, lets call it, different auto-increment keys on id for each uid entry.
So, I will add an entry with uid 10, and the id field for this entry will have a 1 because there were no previous entries with a value of 10 in uid. I will add a new one with uid 4 and its id will be 3 because I there were already two entried with uid 4.
...Very obvious explanation, but I am trying to be as explainative an clear as I can to demonstrate the idea... clearly.
What SQL engine can provide such a functionality natively? (non Microsoft/Oracle based)
If there is none, how could I best replicate it? Triggers perhaps?
Does this functionality have a more suitable name?
In case you know about a non SQL database engine providing such a functioality, name it anyway, I am curious.
Thanks.
MySQL's MyISAM engine can do this. See their manual, in section Using AUTO_INCREMENT:
For MyISAM tables you can specify AUTO_INCREMENT on a secondary column in a multiple-column index. In this case, the generated value for the AUTO_INCREMENT column is calculated as MAX(auto_increment_column) + 1 WHERE prefix=given-prefix. This is useful when you want to put data into ordered groups.
The docs go on after that paragraph, showing an example.
The InnoDB engine in MySQL does not support this feature, which is unfortunate because it's better to use InnoDB in almost all cases.
You can't emulate this behavior using triggers (or any SQL statements limited to transaction scope) without locking tables on INSERT. Consider this sequence of actions:
Mario starts transaction and inserts a new row for user 4.
Bill starts transaction and inserts a new row for user 4.
Mario's session fires a trigger to computes MAX(id)+1 for user 4. You get 3.
Bill's session fires a trigger to compute MAX(id). I get 3.
Bill's session finishes his INSERT and commits.
Mario's session tries to finish his INSERT, but the row with (userid=4, id=3) now exists, so Mario gets a primary key conflict.
In general, you can't control the order of execution of these steps without some kind of synchronization.
The solutions to this are either:
Get an exclusive table lock. Before trying an INSERT, lock the table. This is necessary to prevent concurrent INSERTs from creating a race condition like in the example above. It's necessary to lock the whole table, since you're trying to restrict INSERT there's no specific row to lock (if you were trying to govern access to a given row with UPDATE, you could lock just the specific row). But locking the table causes access to the table to become serial, which limits your throughput.
Do it outside transaction scope. Generate the id number in a way that won't be hidden from two concurrent transactions. By the way, this is what AUTO_INCREMENT does. Two concurrent sessions will each get a unique id value, regardless of their order of execution or order of commit. But tracking the last generated id per userid requires access to the database, or a duplicate data store. For example, a memcached key per userid, which can be incremented atomically.
It's relatively easy to ensure that inserts get unique values. But it's hard to ensure they will get consecutive ordinal values. Also consider:
What happens if you INSERT in a transaction but then roll back? You've allocated id value 3 in that transaction, and then I allocated value 4, so if you roll back and I commit, now there's a gap.
What happens if an INSERT fails because of other constraints on the table (e.g. another column is NOT NULL)? You could get gaps this way too.
If you ever DELETE a row, do you need to renumber all the following rows for the same userid? What does that do to your memcached entries if you use that solution?
SQL Server should allow you to do this. If you can't implement this using a computed column (probably not - there are some restrictions), surely you can implement it in a trigger.
MySQL also would allow you to implement this via triggers.
In a comment you ask the question about efficiency. Unless you are dealing with extreme volumes, storing an 8 byte DATETIME isn't much of an overhead compared to using, for example, a 4 byte INT.
It also massively simplifies your data inserts, as well as being able to cope with records being deleted without creating 'holes' in your sequence.
If you DO need this, be careful with the field names. If you have uid and id in a table, I'd expect id to be unique in that table, and uid to refer to something else. Perhaps, instead, use the field names property_id and amendment_id.
In terms of implementation, there are generally two options.
1). A trigger
Implementations vary, but the logic remains the same. As you don't specify an RDBMS (other than NOT MS/Oracle) the general logic is simple...
Start a transaction (often this is Implicitly already started inside triggers)
Find the MAX(amendment_id) for the property_id being inserted
Update the newly inserted value with MAX(amendment_id) + 1
Commit the transaction
Things to be aware of are...
- multiple records being inserted at the same time
- records being inserted with amendment_id being already populated
- updates altering existing records
2). A Stored Procedure
If you use a stored procedure to control writes to the table, you gain a lot more control.
Implicitly, you know you're only dealing with one record.
You simply don't provide a parameter for DEFAULT fields.
You know what updates / deletes can and can't happen.
You can implement all the business logic you like without hidden triggers
I personally recommend the Stored Procedure route, but triggers do work.
It is important to get your data types right.
What you are describing is a multi-part key. So use a multi-part key. Don't try to encode everything into a magic integer, you will poison the rest of your code.
If a record is identified by (entity_id,version_number) then embrace that description and use it directly instead of mangling the meaning of your keys. You will have to write queries which constrain the version number but that's OK. Databases are good at this sort of thing.
version_number could be a timestamp, as a_horse_with_no_name suggests. This is quite a good idea. There is no meaningful performance disadvantage to using timestamps instead of plain integers. What you gain is meaning, which is more important.
You could maintain a "latest version" table which contains, for each entity_id, only the record with the most-recent version_number. This will be more work for you, so only do it if you really need the performance.