I saw the combination of (xlock,rowlock,holdlock) is used for a table. Refer to online book, holdlock is to hold shared lock(for read,such as select) until transaction is done and xlock is exclusive lock(write lock) for data modification, such as update, insert or delete. How could we use read and write a table at the same time? I am wondering if the combination take effect or not. Confusing...
Locking hints come in various types:
Granularity: rowlock, paglock, tablock
Lock type: nolock, updlock, xlock
Other hints: holdlock, readpast, nowait
The combination you suggest is xlock, rowlock, holdlock. Those three do not conflict. It'll lead to an exclusive rowlock that is held until the end of the transaction.
Related
I am trying clean a temporal table. the quickest way was to drop or truncate table then rollback and only include required rows.
Now my issue is with the 'deadlock' of database. is there a way to use 'with nolock' for the database to not lock
BEGIN TRANSACTION;
drop table audit.Testing with (nolock) ;
rollback transaction
SELECT *
from
(select *
,rn = ROW_NUMBER() OVER (PARTITION BY Id ORDER BY Id DESC)
FROM audit.testing with (nolock)
) a
where rn =1
order by Id, SysEndTime desc```
You are in a deadlock because WITH (NOLOCK) is the equivalent of using READ UNCOMMITTED READUNCOMMITTED
Specifies that dirty reads are allowed. No shared locks are issued to prevent other transactions from modifying data read by the current transaction, and exclusive locks set by other transactions do not block the current transaction from reading the locked data. Allowing dirty reads can cause higher concurrency, but at the cost of reading data modifications that then are rolled back by other transactions. This may generate errors for your transaction, present users with data that was never committed, or cause users to see records twice (or not at all).
READUNCOMMITTED and NOLOCK hints apply only to data locks. All queries, including those with READUNCOMMITTED and NOLOCK hints, acquire Sch-S (schema stability) locks during compilation and execution. Because of this, queries are blocked when a concurrent transaction holds a Sch-M (schema modification) lock on the table. For example, a data definition language (DDL) operation acquires a Sch-M lock before it modifies the schema information of the table. Any concurrent queries, including those running with READUNCOMMITTED or NOLOCK hints, are blocked when attempting to acquire a Sch-S lock. Conversely, a query holding a Sch-S lock blocks a concurrent transaction that attempts to acquire a Sch-M lock
microsoft docs
Hi expert
how I can lock a row in sql server that prevent CRUD operation even SELECT.
Is it Possible?
Serializable Isolation level does not prevent SELECT.
thanks
BEGIN TRAN
SELECT 1
FROM Table
WITH (XLOCK, ROWLOCK)
COMMIT TRAN
That will do the trick.
EDIT
As noted by others, you cannot lock a row to not be read. The only way I know of doing this is as follows:
WITH (UPDLOCK, TABLOCK)
And this is assuming that a WITH (NOLOCK) is never used in a SELECT statement (which should be avoided anyway).
I tested this and it will work, although TABLOCK should only be used in extreme cases. Certainly if concurrency is required, it's a bad solution and some other form of locking would be needed. One way is to update a bit column "Available True/False" and only read rows where Available = True. As #gbn suggested, READPAST could be used with this.
try using the ROWLOCK and UPDLOCK inside a transaction something like this:
BEGIN TRANSACTION
SELECT #ID = ID
FROM YourTable WITH (ROWLOCK, UPDLOCK)
WHERE ....
--more--
COMMIT TRANSACTION
however you can't prevent a SELECT that uses the NOLOCK hint from "dirty" reading this.
As well as ROWLOCK, XLOCK as suggested by other folk, I would consider READPAST in addition
This allows allows other readers and writers to skip the lock on this row. This can increase concurrency because the lock set by ROWLOCK, XLOCK s blocking otherwise
SQL Server already natively locks a record from dirty reads as it is being updated. This has the effect of blocking the select call until the update / insert call is complete.
It's possible to lock a row using a locking hint WITH (ROWLOCK), however a SELECT statement can always get around it by adding a locking hint WITH (NOLOCK) which will provide a dirty read.
I have the following SP:
CREATE PROCEDURE [dbo].[sp_LockReader]
AS
BEGIN
SET NOCOUNT ON;
begin try
set transaction isolation level serializable
begin tran
select * from teste
commit tran
end try
begin catch
rollback tran
set transaction isolation level READ COMMITTED
end catch
set transaction isolation level READ COMMITTED
END
The table "test" has many values, so "select * from teste" takes several seconds. I run the sp_LockReader at same time in two diferent query windows and the second one starts showing test table contents without the first one terminates.
Shouldn't serializeble level forces the second query to wait?
How do i get the described behaviour?
Thanks
SERIALIZABLE at the most basic means "hold locks for longer". When you SELECT, the held lock is a shared lock which allows other readers.
If you want to block readers, use WITH (TABLOCKX) hint to take an exclusive lock where you don't need SERIALIZABLE. Or XLOCK with SERIALIZABLE
In other words:
SERIALIZABLE = Isolation Level = lock duration, concurrency
XLOCK = mode= sharing/exclusivity
TABLOCK = Granularity = what is locked
TABLOCKX = combined
See this question/answer for more info
A serializable transaction whose output is not affected by other concurrent transactions. In your case, you are SELECTing twice from the table; neither of those transactions changes the result set of the other, so they may both run simultaneously.
Even if one transaction did update the table, this would not necessarily prevent the other from executing, as the database may work from snapshots.
Have a look here for a better explanation than I can provide... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolation_%28database_systems%29
Another note here. If you're using XLOCK under a SERIALIZABLE isolation, other transactions with READ COMMITTED isolation will still be able to read XLOCK'ed rows.
To prevent that, use PAGLOCK along with XLOCK.
See here for details
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/324417
So I've got a query that keeps deadlocking on me. People who know the system well can't figure out why the sproc is deadlocking, but they tell me that I should just add this to it:
SET NOCOUNT ON
SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL READ UNCOMMITTED
Is this really a valid solution? What does that do?
SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL READ UNCOMMITTED
This will cause the system to return inconsitent data, including duplicate records and missing records. Read more at Previously committed rows might be missed if NOLOCK hint is used, or here at Timebomb - The Consistency problem with NOLOCK / READ UNCOMMITTED.
Deadlocks can be investigated and fixed, is not a big deal if you follow the proper procedure. Of course, throwing a dirty read may seem easier, but down the road you'll be sitting long hours staring at your general ledger and wondering why the heck it does not balance debits and credits. So read again until you really grok this: DIRTY READs ARE INCONSISTENT READS.
If you want a get-out-of-jail card, turn on snapshot isolation:
ALTER DATABASE MyDatabase
SET READ_COMMITTED_SNAPSHOT ON
But keep in mind that snapshot isolation does not fix the deadlocks, it only hides them. Proper investigation of the deadlock cause and fix is always the appropriate action.
NOCOUNT will keep your query from returning rowcounts back to the calling application (i.e. 1000000 rows affected).
TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL READ UNCOMMITTED will allow for dirty reads as indicated here.
The isolation level may help, but do you want to allow dirty reads?
Randomly adding SET options to the query is unlikely to help I'm afraid
SET NOCOUNT ON
Will have no effect on the issue.
SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL READ UNCOMMITTED
will prevent your query taking out shared locks. As well as reading "dirty" data it also can lead to your query reading the same rows twice, or not at all, dependant upon what other concurrent activity is happening.
Whether this will resolve your deadlock issue depends upon the type of deadlock. It will have no effect at all if the issue is 2 writers deadlocking due to non linear ordering of lock requests. (transaction 1 updating row a, transaction 2 updating row b then tran 1 requesting a lock on b and tran 2 requesting a lock on a)
Can you post the offending query and deadlock graph? (if you are on SQL 2005 or later)
The best guide is:
http://technet.microsoft.com/es-es/library/ms173763.aspx
Snippet:
Specifies that statements can read rows that have been modified by other
transactions but not yet committed.
Transactions running at the READ
UNCOMMITTED level do not issue shared
locks to prevent other transactions
from modifying data read by the
current transaction. READ UNCOMMITTED
transactions are also not blocked by
exclusive locks that would prevent the
current transaction from reading rows
that have been modified but not
committed by other transactions. When
this option is set, it is possible to
read uncommitted modifications, which
are called dirty reads. Values in the
data can be changed and rows can
appear or disappear in the data set
before the end of the transaction.
This option has the same effect as
setting NOLOCK on all tables in all
SELECT statements in a transaction.
This is the least restrictive of the
isolation levels.
In SQL Server, you can also minimize
locking contention while protecting
transactions from dirty reads of
uncommitted data modifications using
either:
The READ COMMITTED isolation level
with the READ_COMMITTED_SNAPSHOT
database option set to ON. The
SNAPSHOT isolation level
.
On a different tack, there are two other aspects to consider, that may help.
1) Indexes and the indexes used by the SQL. The indexing strategy used on the tables will affect how many rows are affected. If you make the data modifications using a unique index, you may reduce the chance of deadlocks.
One algorithm - of course it will not work it all cases. The use of NOLOCK is targeted rather than being global.
The "old" way:
UPDATE dbo.change_table
SET somecol = newval
WHERE non_unique_value = 'something'
The "new" way:
INSERT INTO #temp_table
SELECT uid FROM dbo.change_table WITH (NOLOCK)
WHERE non_unique_value = 'something'
UPDATE dbo.change_table
SET somecol = newval
FROM dbo.change_table c
INNER JOIN
#temp_table t
ON (c.uid = t.uid)
2) Transaction duration
The longer a transaction is open the more likely there may be contention. If there is a way to reduce the amount of time that records remain locked, you can reduce the chances of a deadlock occurring.
For example, perform as many SELECT statements (e.g. lookups) at the start of the code instead of performing an INSERT or UPDATE, then a lookup, then an INSERT, and then another lookup.
This is where one can use the NOLOCK hint for SELECTs on "static" tables that are not changing reducing the lock "footprint" of the code.
I remember an example where reads in a transaction then writing back the data is not safe because another transaction may read/write to it in the time between. So i would like to check the date and prevent the row from being modified or read until my transaction is finish. Would this do the trick? and are there any sql variants that this will not work on?
update tbl set id=id where date>expire_date and id=#id
Note: date>expire_date happens to be my condition. It could be anything. Would this prevent other transaction from reading the row until i commit or rollback?
In a lot of cases, your UPDATE statement will not prevent other transactions from reading the row.
ziang mentioned transaction isolation levels.
Depending on the isolation level, databases use different types of locking. At the highest level, locking can be divided into two categories:
- pessimistic,
- optimistic
MS SQL 2008, for example, has 6 isolation levels, 4 of them are pessimistic, 2 are optimistic. By default , it uses READ COMMITTED isolation level, which falls into the pessimistic category.
Oracle, on another note, uses optimistic locking by default.
The statement that will lock your record for writing is
SELECT * FROM TBL WITH UPDLOCK WHERE id=#id
From that point on, no other transaction will be able to update your record with id=#id
And only transactions running in isolation level READ UNCOMMITTED will be able to read it.
With the default transaction level, READ COMMITTED, no other thansaction will be able to read or write into this record until you either commit or roll back your entire transaction.
It depends on the transaction isolation level you set on your transaction control. There are 4 types of read
READ UNCOMMITTED: this allows the dirty read
READ COMMITTED
REPEATABLE READ
SERIALIZABLE
for more info, you can check msdn.
You should be able to do this in a normal select using a combination of
HOLDLOCK/ROWLOCK
It very well may work. Different platforms offer different services. For instance, in T-SQL, you can simply set the isolation level of the transaction and, as a result, force a lock to be obtained. I don't know what platform you are using so I cannot answer your question definitively.