while 1 = 1
begin
waitfor time #timeToRun
begin
/*delete some records from table X*/
end
end
In the codes above, will the SQL server lock the table X during the wait? I would
like to insert records into table X during this wait time. Is it possible?
All write operations acquire X locks on the rows being updated (deleted) and all these X locks will be hold until the transaction commits. Every statement creates an implicit transaction that commits automatically at the end of the statement, if no transaction is explicitly specified.
So the answer to your question depends whether you call this in a context of an existing transaction or not. If not, then (assuming you do not start a transaction in the inner begin... end block and leave the transaction open) then no lock will be held. If the code is run in a the context of an existing transaction (eg. a TransactionScope in the client started automatically by the WCF service behavior) then any lock placed by the delete will be hold while you wait, until the transaction is committed..
Two part question:
1) In the codes above, will the SQL server lock the table X during the wait?
No. It may lock the rows, but not the table.
2) I would like to insert records into table X during this wait time. Is it possible?
Yes, but they will be locked until your commit
Note: you will want to wrap any work you are doing in a transaction with a BEGIN/COMMIT block. This will avoid the locking issue entirely.
Related
I need to implement a serializable isolation level in SQL Server but I've tried many ways and I don't get it.
I need to lock 1 row in one transaction (It doesn´t matter if lock the complete table). So, another transaction can´t even select the row (don´t read).
The last thing I tried:
For transaction 1:
SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL SERIALIZABLE
BEGIN TRAN
SELECT code FROM table1 WHERE code = 1
-- Here I select in another instance the same row
COMMIT TRAN
For transaction 2:
BEGIN TRAN
SELECT code FROM table1 WHERE code = 1
COMMIT TRAN
I would expect that transaction 2 wait until transaction 1 commit the operation, but the transaction 2 gives me the row.
Anyone can explain me if I miss something?
SQL Server conforms to the strict definition of a Serializable query. That is, there must be a result that can logically be generated IF both queries ran in serial order - Transaction 1 finishing before Transaction 2 can start, or vice versa.
This results in some effects that can be different than you would expect. There is a great explanation of the Serializable isolation level over at SQLPerformance.com that makes clear some of what this logical serializability ends up meaning. (Very helpful site, that one.)
For your above queries, there is no logical requirement to prevent the second query from reading the same row as the first query. No matter in what order the queries are run, they will both return the same data without modifying it. Since the Query Analyzer can identify this, there is no reason to place a read lock on the data. However, if one of the queries performed an update on the data, then (warning - logic assumption here, since I don't actually know the internals of how SQL Server handles this) the QA would set a stronger lock on the selected rows.
TL;DR - SQL Server wants to minimize blocking, so it uses logical analysis to see what types of locks are needed for a serializable isolation level, and it (tries to) use the minimum number and strength of locks needed to achieve its goal.
Now that we've dealt with that - there are only two ways that I can think of to lock a row so that no one else can read it: using XLOCK + TABLOCK (locking the whole table - not a recommended practice) or having some form of a field on each row that is updated when you start your process - something like an SPID field, or a bit flag for Locked. When you update it within your transaction, only SELECTs with NOLOCK hints will be able to read it.
Clearly, neither of these are optimal. I recommend the "This row is busy - go away" flag, as that's probably the approach I would take for an (almost) absolute lock on a row.
According to the documentation:
SERIALIZABLE Specifies the following:
Statements cannot read data that has been modified but not yet committed by other transactions.
No other transactions can modify data that has been read by the current transaction until the current transaction completes.
Other transactions cannot insert new rows with key values that would fall in the range of keys read by any statements in the
current transaction until the current transaction completes.
If you're not making any changes to data with an INSERT, UPDATE, or DELETE inside transaction 1, SQL will release the Shared Lock after the read completes.
What you might want to try is adding a table hit to prevent the row lock from being released until the end of transaction 1.
SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL SERIALIZABLE
BEGIN TRAN
SELECT code
FROM table1 WITH(ROWLOCK, HOLDLOCK)
WHERE code = 1
COMMIT TRAN
Maybe you can solve this with some hack like this?
SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL SERIALIZABLE
BEGIN TRANSACTION
UPDATE someTableForThisHack set val = CASE WHEN val = 1 THEN 0 else 1 End
SELECT code from table1.....
COMMIT TRANSACTION
So you create a table someTableForThisHack and insert one row to it.
I just want to ask if it is always the first query will be executed when encapsulate to a transaction? for example i got 500 k records to be deleted and 500 k to be inserted, is there a possibility of locking?
Actually I already test this query and it works fine but i want to make sure if my assumption is correct.
Note: this will Delete and Insert the same record with possible update on other columns.
BEGIN TRAN;
DELETE FROM OUTPUT TABLE WHERE ID = (1,2,3,4 etc)
INSERT INTO OUTPUT TABLE Values (1,2,3,4 etc)
COMMIT TRAN;
Within a transaction all write locks (all locks acquired for modifications) must obey the strict two phase locking rule. One of the consequences is that a write (X) lock acquired in a transaction cannot be released until the transaction commits. So yes, the DELETE and INSERT will execute sequentially and all locks acquired during the DELETE will be retained while executing the INSERT.
Keep in mind that deleting 500k rows in a transaction will escalate the locks to one table lock, see Lock Escalation.
Deleting 500k rows and inserting 500k rows in a single transaction, while maybe correct, is a bad idea. You should avoid such large units of works, long transaction, if possible. Long transactions pin the log in place, create blocking and contention, increase recovery and DB startup time, increase SQL Server resource consumption (locks require memory).
You should consider doing the operation in small batches (perhaps 10000 rows at time), use MERGE instead of DELETE/INSERT (if possible) and, last but not least, consider a partitioned sliding window
implementation, see How to Implement an Automatic Sliding Window in a Partitioned Table.
From the documentation on TRANSACTION (emphasis mine):
BEGIN TRANSACTION represents a point at which the data referenced by a
connection is logically and physically consistent. If errors are
encountered, all data modifications made after the BEGIN TRANSACTION
can be rolled back to return the data to this known state of
consistency. Each transaction lasts until either it completes without
errors and COMMIT TRANSACTION is issued to make the modifications a
permanent part of the database, or errors are encountered and all
modifications are erased with a ROLLBACK TRANSACTION statement.
BEGIN TRANSACTION starts a local transaction for the connection
issuing the statement. Depending on the current transaction isolation
level settings, many resources acquired to support the Transact-SQL
statements issued by the connection are locked by the transaction
until it is completed with either a COMMIT TRANSACTION or ROLLBACK
TRANSACTION statement. Transactions left outstanding for long periods
of time can prevent other users from accessing these locked resources,
and also can prevent log truncation.
Although BEGIN TRANSACTION starts a local transaction, it is not
recorded in the transaction log until the application subsequently
performs an action that must be recorded in the log, such as executing
an INSERT, UPDATE, or DELETE statement. An application can perform
actions such as acquiring locks to protect the transaction isolation
level of SELECT statements, but nothing is recorded in the log until
the application performs a modification action.
I am not able to understand how select will behave while its part of exclusive transaction. Please consider following scenarios –
Scenario 1
Step 1.1
create table Tmp(x int)
insert into Tmp values(1)
Step 1.2 – session 1
begin tran
set transaction isolation level serializable
select * from Tmp
Step 1.3 – session 2
select * from Tmp
Even first session hasn't been finished, session 2 will be able to read tmp table. I thought Tmp will have exclusive lock and shared lock should not be issued to select query in session 2. And it’s not happening. I have made sure that default isolation level is READ COMMITED.
Thanks in advance for helping me in understanding this behavior.
EDIT : Why I need select in exclusive lock?
I have a SP which actually generate sequential values. So flow is -
read max values from Table and store value in variables
Update table set value=value+1
This SP is executed in parallel by several thousand instances. If two instances execute SP at same time, then they will read same value and will update value+1. Though I would like to have sequential value for every execution. I think its possible only if select is also part of exclusive lock.
If you want a transaction to be serializable, you have to change that option before you start the outermost transaction. So your first session is incorrect and is still actually running under read committed (or whatever other level was in effect for that session).
But even if you correct the order of statements, it still will not acquire an exclusive lock for a plain SELECT statement.
If you want the plain SELECT to acquire an exclusive lock, you need to ask for it:
select * from Tmp with (XLOCK)
or you need to execute a statement that actually requires an exclusive lock:
update Tmp set x = x
Your first session doesn't need an exclusive lock because it's not changing the data. If your first (serializable) session had run to completion and either rolled back or committed, before your second session was started, that session's results would still be the same because your first session didn't change the data - and so the "serializable" nature of the transaction was correct.
This answer quotes this Technet article which explains the two interpretations of lost updates:
A lost update can be interpreted in one of two ways. In the first scenario, a lost update is considered to have taken place when data that has been updated by one transaction is overwritten by another transaction, before the first transaction is either committed or rolled back. This type of lost update cannot occur in SQL Server 2005 because it is not allowed under any transaction isolation level.
The other interpretation of a lost update is when one transaction (Transaction #1) reads data into its local memory, and then another transaction (Transaction #2) changes this data and commits its change. After this, Transaction #1 updates the same data based on what it read into memory before Transaction #2 was executed. In this case, the update performed by Transaction #2 can be considered a lost update.
So it looks like the difference is that in the first scenario the whole update happens out of "local memory" while in the second one there's "local memory" used and this makes a difference.
Suppose I have the following code:
UPDATE MagicTable SET MagicColumn = MagicColumn + 10 WHERE SomeCondition
Does this involve "local memory"? Is it prone to the first or to the second interpretation of lost updates?
I suppose it would come under the second interpretation.
However the way this type of UPDATE is implemented in SQL Server a lost update is still not possible. Rows read for the update are protected with a U lock (converted to X lock when the row is actually updated).
U locks are not compatible with other U locks (or X locks)
So at all isolation levels if two concurrent transactions were to run this statement then one of them would end up blocked behind the other transaction's U lock or X lock and would not be able to proceed until that transaction completes.
Therefore it is not possible for lost updates to occur with this pattern in SQL Server at any isolation level.
To achieve a lost update you would need to do something like
BEGIN TRAN
DECLARE #MagicColumn INT;
/*Two concurrent transactions can both read the same pre-update value*/
SELECT #MagicColumn = MagicColumn FROM MagicTable WHERE SomeCondition
UPDATE MagicTable SET MagicColumn = #MagicColumn + 10 WHERE SomeCondition
COMMIT
(Note: this is for MS SQL Server)
Say you have a table ABC with a primary key identity column, and a CODE column. We want every row in here to have a unique, sequentially-generated code (based on some typical check-digit formula).
Say you have another table DEF with only one row, which stores the next available CODE (imagine a simple autonumber).
I know logic like below would present a race condition, in which two users could end up with the same CODE:
1) Run a select query to grab next available code from DEF
2) Insert said code into table ABC
3) Increment the value in DEF so it's not re-used.
I know that, two users could get stuck at Step 1), and could end up with same CODE in the ABC table.
What is the best way to deal with this situation? I thought I could just wrap a "begin tran" / "commit tran" around this logic, but I don't think that worked. I had a stored procedure like this to test, but I didn't avoid the race condition when I ran from two different windows in MS:
begin tran
declare #x int
select #x= nextcode FROM def
waitfor delay '00:00:15'
update def set nextcode = nextcode + 1
select #x
commit tran
Can someone shed some light on this? I thought the transaction would prevent another user from being able to access my NextCodeTable until the first transaction completed, but I guess my understanding of transactions is flawed.
EDIT: I tried moving the wait to after the "update" statement, and I got two different codes... but I suspected that. I have the waitfor statement there to simulate a delay so the race condition can be easily seen. I think the key problem is my incorrect perception of how transactions work.
Set the Transaction Isolation Level to Serializable.
At lower isolation levels, other transactions can read the data in a row that is read, (but not yet modified) in this transaction. So two transactions can indeed read the same value. At very low isolation (Read Uncommitted) other transactions can even read data after it's been modified (but before committed)...
Review details about SQL Server Isolation Levels here
So bottom line is that the Isolation level is crtitical piece here to control what level of access other transactions get into this one.
NOTE. From the link, about Serializable
Statements cannot read data that has been modified but not yet committed by other transactions.
This is because the locks are placed when the row is modified, not when the Begin Trans occurs, So what you have done may still allow another transaction to read the old value until the point where you modify it. So I would change the logic to modify it in the same statement as you read it, thereby putting the lock on it at the same time.
begin tran
declare #x int
update def set #x= nextcode, nextcode += 1
waitfor delay '00:00:15'
select #x
commit tran
As other responders have mentioned, you can set the transaction isolation level to ensure that anything you 'read' using a SELECT statement cannot change within a transaction.
Alternatively, you could take out a lock specifically on the DEF table by adding the syntax WITH HOLDLOCK after the table name, e.g.,
SELECT nextcode FROM DEF WITH HOLDLOCK
It doesn't make much difference here, as your transaction is small, but it can be useful to take out locks for some SELECTs and not others within a transaction. It's a question of 'repeatability versus concurrency'.
A couple of relavant MS-SQL docs.
Isolation levels
Table hints
Late answer. You want to avoid a race condition...
"SQL Server Process Queue Race Condition"
Recap:
You began a transaction. This doesn't actually "do" anything in and of itself, it modifies subsequent behavior
You read data from a table. The default isolation level is Read Committed, so this select statement is not made part of the transaction.
You then wait 15 seconds
You then issue an update. With the declared transaction, this will generate a lock until the transaction is committed.
You then commit the transaction, releasing the lock.
So, guessing you ran this simultaneously in two windows (A and B):
A read the "next" value from table def, then went into wait mode
B read the same "next" value from the table, then went into wait mode. (Since A only did a read, the transaction did not lock anything.)
A then updated the table, and probably commited the change before B exited the wait state.
B then updated the table, after A's write was committed.
Try putting the wait statement after the update, before the commit, and see what happens.
It's not a real race condition. It's more a common problem with concurrent transactions. One solution is to set a read lock on the table and therefor have a serialization in place.
This is actually a common problem in SQL databases and that is why most (all?) of them have some built in features to take care of this issue of obtaining a unique identifier. Here are some things to look into if you are using Mysql or Postgres. If you are using a different database I bet the provide something very similar.
A good example of this is postgres sequences which you can check out here:
Postgres Sequences
Mysql uses something called auto increments.
Mysql auto increment
You can set the column to a computed value that is persisted. This will take care of the race condition.
Persisted Computed Columns
NOTE
Using this method means you do not need to store the next code in a table. The code column becomes the reference point.
Implementation
Give the column the following properties under computed column specification.
Formula = dbo.GetNextCode()
Is Persisted = Yes
Create Function dbo.GetNextCode()
Returns VarChar(10)
As
Begin
Declare #Return VarChar(10);
Declare #MaxId Int
Select #MaxId = Max(Id)
From Table
Select #Return = Code
From Table
Where Id = #MaxId;
/* Generate New Code ... */
Return #Return;
End