If I write code in a PL/SQL function which upon catching a ORA-00060 deadlock exception (Oracle 10g), just rolls back and retries the transaction, will, such a function complete in a finite amount of time (you can assume that the work to be done by the database is finite, not an infinite stream)?
Is there any particular reason why I should add a wait before retrying?
In general, it depends on what other transactions in the system, especially the other(s) involved in the deadlock, are doing. You could have a situation where the second attempt would block indefinitely due to locked resources, or even encounter a second deadlock.
At the very least, before implementing this solution, I think you should understand how the deadlock is arising and consider what is likely to happen in the other sessions involved when the first session gets the exception.
Related
I have two functions which both require a transaction. One is calling the other. I have code that can nest such transactions using SAVEPOINT into a single one.
If they have the same transaction isolation level there is no problem. Now, if they do not, is there still way I could 'correctly' combine the transactions?
What would be the risk, other than decreased performance, if I ran both transaction under the most restrictive isolation level of the two?
In this situation, yes, generally you can combine transaction into the more restrictive isolation level.
The risk is pretty much that higher isolation level is going to catch more serialisation errors (i.e. ERROR: could not serialize access due to concurrent update in REPEATABLE READ and ERROR: could not serialize access due to read/write dependencies among transactions in SERIALIZABLE). The typical way to handle these serialisation failures is to retry the transactions, but you should verify whether this makes sense within the context of your application.
Another possible error that might occur is dead locks. Postgres should detect these and break the dead lock (after which the failing transaction should retry), but if you can, you should always try to write your application so dead locks can't exists in the first place. Generally, the main technique to avoid dead lock is to make sure that all applications that acquires any locks (implicit or explicit locks) to acquire those locks in consistent order.
You may need to take special care if your application needs to make requests to another external service, as you may need to verify whether the retry are going to cause you to make unwanted duplicate requests, especially if these external requests are not idempotent.
I have set of validations which decides record to be inserted into the database with valid status code, the issue we are facing is that many users are making requests at the same time and middle of one transaction another transaction comes and both are getting inserted with valid status, which it shouldn't. it should return an error that record already exists which can be easily handled by a simple query but at specific scenarios we are allowing them to insert duplicates, I have tried sp_getapplock which is solving my problem but it is compromising performance big time. Are there any optimal ways to handle concurrent requests?
Thanks.
sp_getapplock is pretty much the befiest and most arbitrary lock you can take. It functions more like the lock keyword does in OOO programming. Basically you name a resource, give it a scope (proc or transaction), then lock it. Pretty much nothing can bypass that lock, which is why it's solved your race conditions. It's also probably mad overkill for what you're trying to do.
The first code/architecture idea that comes to mind is to restructure this table. I'm going to assume you have high update volumes or you wouldn't be running into these violations. You could simply use a try/catch block, and have the catch block retry on a PK violation. Clumsy, but might just do the trick.
Next, you could consider altering the structure of the table which receives this stream of updates throughout the day. Make this table primary keyed off an identity column, and pretty much nothing else. Inserts will be lightning fast, so any blockage will be negligible. You can then move this data in batches into a table better suited for batch processing (as opposed to trying to batch-process in real time)
There are also a whole range of transaction isolation settings which adjust SQL's regular locking system to support different variants (whether at the batch level, or inline via query hints. I'd read up on those, but you might consider looking at Serialized isolation. Various settings will enforce different runtime rules to fit your needs.
Also be sure to check your transactions. You probably want to be locking the hell out of this table (and potentially during some other action) but once that need is gone, so should the lock.
My SQLite-based application currently uses transactions - both for being able to rollback and for improving performance. I'm considering replacing all transactions with savepoints. The reason is that the application is multi-threaded (yes, sqlite is configured to be thread-safe), and in some cases a transaction might get started by two threads in the same time (on the same db).
It there a reason NOT to do it?
Are there any pitfalls I need to be aware of?
Do I just replace BEGIN, COMMIT, ROLLBACK with SAVEPOINT xyz, RELEASE SAVEPOINT xyz, ROLLBACK TO SAVEPOINT xyz?
It there a reason NOT to do it?
Yes. It won't solve any of the problems that you outlined. Save points are primarily used to be able to do partial rollbacks of data. The outer transaction or savepoint is what actually is committed. Nothing is really fully saved until that outermost savepoint is released thus updating the DB. You are right back back to the same problem that you have with standard transactions.
Are there any pitfalls I need to be aware of?
Yes. Transactions or savepoints in a multithreaded application can deadlock fairly easily if you are update the same data in two different threads which I assume is the heart of the matter. There is no difference between the two in this regard. You should be aware of what you are updating in each thread and synchronize accordingly.
In short, unless you have the need to do partial transaction rollback, savepoints really wont give you much (other than the fact that they are named.)
There is no silver bullet here. It sounds like you need to do a serious analyses of your application and the data that may be updated in multiple threads and add some synchronization in you application if needed.
We all know about techniques to prevent db deadlocks - acquire locks in the same order, etc. But at some point, systems under pressure may simply suffer from deadlocks here and there. Should we simply accept that and always be prepared to retry when a deadlock occurs or should deadlocks be considered absolutely verboten and should we do everything in our power to prevent them?
The answer is yes.
You should do everything in your power to prevent them, but are you ever going to be satisfied that you've made them impossible?
Do everything in your power to prevent them, and be prepared to retry when they occur. :)
Keep in mind that "doing everything in your power" can mean things like queueing batch updates, making inserts into temp tables and then merging those into the main tables later and other non-trivial techniques. Be sure to check your transaction isolation level and your lock escalation policy.
This will probably be closed, but the world is trending to NoSQL solutions to this problem, breaking problems up so that guaranteed consistency isn't required from the datasource meaning that locks aren't required.
Facebook would be a good example of this, it doesn't matter when everyone sees your update, or if different users around the world see different versions of your profile. As long as the update works or eventually fails, that is good enough.
I am encountering very infrequent yet annoying SQL deadlocks on a .NET 2.0 webapp running on top of MS SQL Server 2005. In the past, we have been dealing with the SQL deadlocks in the very empirical way - basically tweaking the queries until it work.
Yet, I found this approach very unsatisfactory: time consuming and unreliable. I would highly prefer to follow deterministic query patterns that would ensure by design that no SQL deadlock will be encountered - ever.
For example, in C# multithreaded programming, a simple design rule such as the locks must be taken following their lexicographical order ensures that no deadlock will ever happen.
Are there any SQL coding patterns guaranteed to be deadlock-proof?
Writing deadlock-proof code is really hard. Even when you access the tables in the same order you may still get deadlocks [1]. I wrote a post on my blog that elaborates through some approaches that will help you avoid and resolve deadlock situations.
If you want to ensure two statements/transactions will never deadlock you may be able to achieve it by observing which locks each statement consumes using the sp_lock system stored procedure. To do this you have to either be very fast or use an open transaction with a holdlock hint.
Notes:
Any SELECT statement that needs more than one lock at once can deadlock against an intelligently designed transaction which grabs the locks in reverse order.
Zero deadlocks is basically an incredibly costly problem in the general case because you must know all the tables/obj that you're going to read and modify for every running transaction (this includes SELECTs). The general philosophy is called ordered strict two-phase locking (not to be confused with two-phase commit) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_phase_locking ; even 2PL does not guarantee no deadlocks)
Very few DBMS actually implement strict 2PL because of the massive performance hit such a thing causes (there are no free lunches) while all your transactions wait around for even simple SELECT statements to be executed.
Anyway, if this is something you're really interested in, take a look at SET ISOLATION LEVEL in SQL Server. You can tweak that as necessary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolation_level
For more info, see wikipedia on Serializability: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serializability
That said -- a great analogy is like source code revisions: check in early and often. Keep your transactions small (in # of SQL statements, # of rows modified) and quick (wall clock time helps avoid collisions with others). It may be nice and tidy to do a LOT of things in a single transaction -- and in general I agree with that philosophy -- but if you're experiencing a lot of deadlocks, you may break the trans up into smaller ones and then check their status in the application as you move along. TRAN 1 - OK Y/N? If Y, send TRAN 2 - OK Y/N? etc. etc
As an aside, in my many years of being a DBA and also a developer (of multiuser DB apps measuring thousands of concurrent users) I have never found deadlocks to be such a massive problem that I needed special cognizance of it (or to change isolation levels willy-nilly, etc).
There is no magic general purpose solution to this problem that work in practice. You can push concurrency to the application but this can be very complex especially if you need to coordinate with other programs running in separate memory spaces.
General answers to reduce deadlock opportunities:
Basic query optimization (proper index use) hotspot avoidanant design, hold transactions for shortest possible times...etc.
When possible set reasonable query timeouts so that if a deadlock should occur it is self-clearing after the timeout period expires.
Deadlocks in MSSQL are often due to its default read concurrency model so its very important not to depend on it - assume Oracle style MVCC in all designs. Use snapshot isolation or if possible the READ UNCOMMITED isolation level.
I believe the following useful read/write pattern is dead lock proof given some constraints:
Constraints:
One table
An index or PK is used for read/write so engine does not resort to table locks.
A batch of records can be read using a single SQL where clause.
Using SQL Server terminology.
Write Cycle:
All writes within a single "Read Committed" transaction.
The first update in the transaction is to a specific, always-present record
within each update group.
Multiple records may then be written in any order. (They are "protected"
by the write to the first record).
Read Cycle:
The default read committed transaction level
No transaction
Read records as a single select statement.
Benefits:
Secondary write cycles are blocked at the write of first record until the first write transaction completes entirely.
Reads are blocked/queued/executed atomically between the write commits.
Achieve transaction level consistency w/o resorting to "Serializable".
I need this to work too so please comment/correct!!
As you said, always access tables in the same order is a very good way to avoid deadlocks. Furthermore, shorten your transactions as much as possible.
Another cool trick is to combine 2 sql statements in one whenever you can. Single statements are always transactional. For example use "UPDATE ... SELECT" or "INSERT ... SELECT", use "##ERROR" and "##ROWCOUNT" instead of "SELECT COUNT" or "IF (EXISTS ...)"
Lastly, make sure that your calling code can handle deadlocks by reposting the query a configurable amount of times. Sometimes it just happens, it's normal behaviour and your application must be able to deal with it.
In addition to consistent sequence of lock acquisition - another path is explicit use of locking and isolation hints to reduce time/resources wasted unintentionally acquiring locks such as shared-intent during read.
Something that none has mentioned (surprisingly), is that where SQL server is concerned many locking problems can be eliminated with the right set of covering indexes for a DB's query workload. Why? Because it can greatly reduce the number of bookmark lookups into a table's clustered index (assuming it's not a heap), thus reducing contention and locking.
If you have enough design control over your app, restrict your updates / inserts to specific stored procedures and remove update / insert privileges from the database roles used by the app (only explicitly allow updates through those stored procedures).
Isolate your database connections to a specific class in your app (every connection must come from this class) and specify that "query only" connections set the isolation level to "dirty read" ... the equivalent to a (nolock) on every join.
That way you isolate the activities that can cause locks (to specific stored procedures) and take "simple reads" out of the "locking loop".
Quick answer is no, there is no guaranteed technique.
I don't see how you can make any application deadlock proof in general as a design principle if it has any non-trivial throughput. If you pre-emptively lock all the resources you could potentially need in a process in the same order even if you don't end up needing them, you risk the more costly issue where the second process is waiting to acquire the first lock it needs, and your availability is impacted. And as the number of resources in your system grows, even trivial processes have to lock them all in the same order to prevent deadlocks.
The best way to solve SQL deadlock problems, like most performance and availability problems is to look at the workload in the profiler and understand the behavior.
Not a direct answer to your question, but food for thought:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dining_philosophers_problem
The "Dining philosophers problem" is an old thought experiment for examining the deadlock problem. Reading about it might help you find a solution to your particular circumstance.