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?
Related
I have a data warehouse which are used by multiple downstream users. They read the data from the redshift table. When they read the data, there is a shared lock enforced on the table. At that time, my daily job which is supposed to write on the table does not write as it cannot put an exclusive lock until the shared lock is clear.
Ideally my write job should take priority over any other read job. Can I enforce this is some way?
Usually this is done by your update process not requiring an exclusive lock or managing the need for locks so that the update process isn't blocked.
Can you describe your update process and which steps are requiring the exclusive locks?
Look at the locks and statements causing them when things are making forward progress. Reworking these parts should allow you to keep you updates moving while these read sessions are acting on the versions of data they started with.
It is also important to not have user transactions that hang around for days on end. This can happen when interactive sessions are just left open mid transaction. The also prevents errors due to some sessions seeing very old versions of data.
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.
I want to implement a mutual exclusion system in PostgreSQL where multiple worker processes will temporarily lock resources (rows) from a table (queue) while they work on them. If the worker processes crash, I want the lock to be cleanly released and not have to rely on another process to clean up the leaked locks.
What I have come up with so far is to use a SELECT ... FOR UPDATE SKIP LOCKED query within a transaction, which locks the row it finds and skips any other locked row.
It works well but one of the issues is that the worker might take a while to do its task and I need to keep the transaction open for the entire duration of its task.
Another problem is that the workers work incrementally and persist their state to the database so that if they're stopped or crash, they can resume quickly where they were. The row being locked makes it impossible to persist their state in the same table (though I think I can get away from that by using another table to persist the state).
I've searched on the Web on how to implement a semaphore or a resource borrowing system in SQL/PostgreSQL but I haven't found something that fits my needs. Is there a simple way of achieving this with PostgreSQL?
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
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.