I have read committed snapshot isolation and allow isolation ON for my database. I'm still receiving a deadlock error. I'm pretty sure I know what is happening...
First transaction gets a sequence number at the beginning of its transaction.
Second one gets a later sequence number at the beginning of its transaction, but after the first transaction has already gotten its (second sequence number is more recent than first).
Second transaction makes it to the update statement first. When it checks the row versioning it sees the record that precedes both transactions since the first one hasn't reached the update yet. It finds that the row's sequence number is in a committed state and moves on it's merry way.
The first transaction takes it's turn and like the second transaction finds the same committed sequence number because it won't see the second one because it is newer than itself. When it tries to commit it finds that another transaction has already updated records that are trying to be committed and has to roll itself back.
Here is my question: Will this rollback appear as a deadlock in a trace?
In a comment attached to the original question you said: "I'm just wondering if an update conflict will appear as a deadlock or if it will appear as something different." I actually had exactly these types of concerns when I started looking into using snapshot isolation. Eventually I realized that there is significant difference between READ_COMMITTED_SNAPSHOT and isolation level SNAPSHOT.
The former uses row versioning for reads, but continues to use exclusive locking for writes. So, READ_COMMITTED_SNAPHOT is actually something in between pure pessimistic and pure optimistic concurrency control. Because it uses locks for writing, update conflicts are not possible, but deadlocks are. At least in SQL Server those deadlocks will be reported as deadlocks just as they are with 'normal' pessimistic locking.
The latter (isolation level SNAPSHOT) is pure optimistic concurrency control. Row versioning is used for both reads and writes. Deadlocks are not possible, but update conflicts are. The latter are reported as update conflicts and not as deadlocks.
The snapshot transaction is rolled back, and it receives the following error message:
Msg 3960, Level 16, State 4, Line 1
Snapshot isolation transaction aborted due to update conflict. You cannot use snapshot
isolation to access table 'Test.TestTran' directly or indirectly in database 'TestDatabase' to
update, delete, or insert the row that has been modified or deleted by another transaction.
Retry the transaction or change the isolation level for the update/delete statement.
To prevent deadlock enable both
ALLOW_SNAPSHOT_ISOLATION and READ_COMMITTED_SNAPSHOT
ALTER DATABASE [BD] SET READ_COMMITTED_SNAPSHOT ON;
ALTER DATABASE [BD] SET ALLOW_SNAPSHOT_ISOLATION ON;
here explain the differences
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sqlserver/gg545007.aspx
Related
In Oracle databases I can start a transaction and update a row without committing. Selecting this row in another session still returns the current ("old") value.
How to get this behaviour in SQL Server? Currently, the row is locked until the transaction is ended. WITH (NOLOCK) inside the select statement gives the new value from the uncommitted transaction which is potentially dangerous.
Starting the transaction without committing:
BEGIN TRAN;
UPDATE test SET val = 'Updated' WHERE id = 1;
This works:
SELECT * FROM test WHERE id = 2;
This waits for the transaction to be committed:
SELECT * FROM test WHERE id = 1;
With Read Committed Snapshot Isolation (RCSI), versions of rows are stored in a version store, so readers can read a version of a row that existed at the time the statement started and before any changes have been made; while a transaction is open; without taking shared locks on rows or pages; and without blocking writers or other readers. From this post by Paul White:
To summarize, locking read committed sees each row as it was at the time it was briefly locked and physically read; RCSI sees all rows as they were at the time the statement began. Both implementations are guaranteed to never see uncommitted data,
One cost, of course, is that if you read a prior version of the row, it can change (even many times) before you're done doing whatever it is you plan to do with it. If you're making important decisions based on some past version of the row, it may be the case that you actually want an isolation level that forces you to wait until all changes have been committed.
Another cost is that version store is not free... it requires space and I/O in tempdb, so if tempdb is already a bottleneck on your system, this is something worth testing.
(In SQL Server 2019, with Accelerated Database Recovery, the version store shifts to the user database, which increases database size but mitigates some of the tempdb contention.)
Paul's post goes on to explain some other risks and caveats.
In almost all cases, this is still way better than NOLOCK, IMHO. Lots of links about the dangers there (and why RCSI is better) here:
I'm using NOLOCK; is that bad?
And finally, from the documentation (adding one clarification from the comments):
When the READ_COMMITTED_SNAPSHOT database option is set ON, read committed isolation uses row versioning to provide statement-level read consistency. Read operations require only SCH-S table level locks and no page or row locks. That is, the SQL Server Database Engine uses row versioning to present each statement with a transactionally consistent snapshot of the data as it existed at the start of the statement. Locks are not used to protect the data from updates by other transactions. A user-defined function can return data that was committed after the time the statement containing the UDF began.When the READ_COMMITTED_SNAPSHOT database option is set OFF, which is the default setting * on-prem but not in Azure SQL Database *, read committed isolation uses shared locks to prevent other transactions from modifying rows while the current transaction is running a read operation. The shared locks also block the statement from reading rows modified by other transactions until the other transaction is completed. Both implementations meet the ISO definition of read committed isolation.
The specification for the Repeatable-Read isolation level defines that a transaction with this IL will prevent other transactions from updating any rows that this transaction has read until this transaction has completed. Thus, repeatable reads are guaranteed.
Consider the following order of operations for two concurrent transactions T1 and T2, both using repeatable read IL:
T1: Read row
T2: Read row
T1: Update row
T2: Update row
I think that the update in step 3 would violate the specification for the isolation level, since T2 would read a different value if it read the row again.
The converse can be said for the update in step 4.
So, what different options are available for RDBMSs in general resolve this conflict?
More specifically, how is this handled in SQL Server 2017+?
Will this result in a deadlock since neither transaction can complete its operations?
Or would one transaction be rolled back?
I've seen that Lost Updates are prevented in SQL Server. What does this mean for the resolution of this specific case?
I have perused the answers to these questions:
Repeatable read and lock compatibility table
Repeatable Read - am I understanding this right?
repeatable read and second lost updates issue
MySQL Repeatable Read isolation level and Lost Update phenomena
And although the last one asks a similar question but doesn't include any specific info about how RDBMSs which prevent lost updates for txs with this isolation level handle this case.
If I have a database transaction which goes along the lines of:
DELETE FROM table WHERE id = ANY(ARRAY[id1, id2, id3,...]) RETURNING foo, bar;
if num_rows_returned != num_rows_in_array then
rollback and return
Do stuff with deleted data...
Commit
My understanding is that the DELETE query will lock those rows, until the transaction is committed or rolled back. As according to the postgres 9.1 docs:
An exclusive row-level lock on a specific row is automatically
acquired when the row is updated or deleted. The lock is held until
the transaction commits or rolls back, just like table-level locks.
Row-level locks do not affect data querying; they block only writers
to the same row.
I am using the default read committed isolation level in postgres 9.1.13
I would take from this that I should be OK, but I want to ensure that this means the following things are true:
Only one transaction may delete and return a row from this table, unless a previous transaction was rolled back.
This means "Do stuff with deleted data" can only be done once per row.
If two transactions try to do the above at once with conflicting rows, one will always succeed (ignoring system failure), and one will always fail.
Concurrent transactions may succeed when there is no crossover of rows.
If a transaction is unable to delete and return all rows, it will rollback and thus not delete any rows. A transaction may try to delete two rows for example. One row is already deleted by another transaction, but the other is free to be returned. However since one row is already deleted, the other must not be deleted and processed. Only if all specified ids can be deleted and returned may anything take place.
Using the normal idea of concurrency, processes/transactions do not fail when they are locked out of data, they wait.
The DBMS implements execution in such a way that transactions advance but only seeing effects from other transactions according to the isolation level. (Only in the case of detected deadlock is a transaction aborted, and even then its implemented execution will begin again, and the killing is not evident to its next execution or to other transactions except per isolation level.) Under SERIALIZABLE isolation level this means that the database will change as if all transactions happened without overlap in some order. Other levels allow a transaction to see certain effects of overlapped implementation execution of other transactions.
However in the case of PostgresSQL under SERIALIZABLE when a transaction tries to commit and the DBMS sees that it would give non-serialized behaviour the tranasaction is aborted with notification but not automatically restarted. (Note that this is not failure from implementation execution attempted access to a locked resource.)
(Prior to 9.1, PostgrSQL SERIALIZABLE did not give SQL standard (serialized) behaviour: "To retain the legacy Serializable behavior, Repeatable Read should now be requested.")
The locking protocols are how actual implementation execution gets interleaved to maximize throughput while keeping that true. All locking does is prevent actual overlapped implementation execution accesses to effect the apparent serialized execution.
Explicit locking by transaction code also just causes waiting.
Your question does not reflect this. You seem to think that attempted access to a locked resource by the implementation aborts a transaction. That is not so.
When using ColdFusion 8 with MSSQL, when tracing, my DBA noticed the cfquery calls are getting appended with SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL READ COMMITTED which is not in the query itself. He recommended to remove it or change to uncommitted for performance reasons.
Is this something that ColdFusion is adding and is that by default in ColdFusion and/or MSSQL?
I am using ColdFusion's default MSSQL drivers and I am able to temporary change by using <cftransaction isolation="read_uncommitted"> tag around each of the cfquerys.
Are there any other ways to stop that from being appended in ColdFusion or is cftransaction the best method?
Last question, when using isolation="read_uncommitted" why is it adding SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL READ UNCOMMITTED before but right after the query adding SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL READ COMMITTED?
Thank you in advance.
Committed is the default isolation level for any query to the DB that does not otherwise have an isolation level specified. You are changing it for the duration of your execution and then it reverts back to "committed". The creation of the statement is a part of what goes on "under the hood" as CF and the JDBC Driver work together. Using "read_uncommitted" is faster because it reads without preventing any other connection or query from altering or reading the data. So it opens up the possibility of a "dirty read" (where you are reading uncommitted and therefore possibly incorrect data) but in many cases that's not much of an issue so your DBA could be right.
This is not being interpreted correctly, read_committed is an 'isolation' issue, if some other task has the table open for update/insert/delete the transaction that is in 'read_committed' will be held waiting for locks to be released from the table until transactions ARE committed. If the transaction is set for 'read_uncommitted' it will read directly from the existing data and will NOT wait for the pending update/insert/delete . Hence the term, 'Dirty' meaning that anything pending, not committed will not be returned, but it won't be locked and delayed either.
Could some one please help me understand when to use SNAPSHOT isolation level over READ COMMITTED SNAPSHOT in SQL Server?
I understand that in most cases READ COMMITTED SNAPSHOT works, but not sure when go for SNAPSHOT isolation.
Thanks
READ COMMITTED SNAPSHOT does optimistic reads and pessimistic writes. In contrast, SNAPSHOT does optimistic reads and optimistic writes.
Microsoft recommends READ COMMITTED SNAPSHOT for most apps that need row versioning.
Read this excellent Microsoft article: Choosing Row Versioning-based Isolation Levels. It explains the benefits and costs of both isolation levels.
And here's a more thorough one:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms345124(SQL.90).aspx
[![Isolation levels table][2]][2]
See the example below:
Read Committed Snapshot
Change the database property as below
ALTER DATABASE SQLAuthority
SET READ_COMMITTED_SNAPSHOT ON WITH ROLLBACK IMMEDIATE
GO
Session 1
USE SQLAuthority
GO
BEGIN TRAN
UPDATE DemoTable
SET i = 4
WHERE i = 1
Session 2
USE SQLAuthority
GO
BEGIN TRAN
SELECT *
FROM DemoTable
WHERE i = 1
Result – Query in Session 2 shows old value (1, ONE) because current transaction is NOT committed. This is the way to avoid blocking and read committed data also.
Session 1
COMMIT
Session 2
USE SQLAuthority
GO
SELECT *
FROM DemoTable
WHERE i = 1
Result – Query in Session 2 shows no rows because row is updated in session 1. So again, we are seeing committed data.
Snapshot Isolation Level
This is the new isolation level, which was available from SQL Server 2005 onwards. For this feature, there is a change needed in the application as it has to use a new isolation level.
Change database setting using below. We need to make sure that there is no transaction in the database.
ALTER DATABASE SQLAuthority SET AllOW_SNAPSHOT_ISOLATION ON
Now, we also need to change the isolation level of connection by using below
Session 1
USE SQLAuthority
GO
BEGIN TRAN
UPDATE DemoTable
SET i = 10
WHERE i = 2
Session 2
SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL SNAPSHOT
GO
USE SQLAuthority
GO
BEGIN TRAN
SELECT *
FROM DemoTable
WHERE i = 2
Result- Even if we have changed the value to 10, we will still see old record in session 2 (2, TWO).
Now, let’s commit transaction in session 1
Session 1
COMMIT
Let’s come back to session 2 and run select again.
Session 2
SELECT *
FROM DemoTable
WHERE i = 2
We will still see the record because session 2 has stated the transaction with snapshot isolation. Unless we complete the transaction, we will not see latest record.
Session 2
COMMIT
SELECT *
FROM DemoTable
WHERE i = 2
Now, we should not see the row as it's already updated.
See: SQL Authority, Safari Books Online
No comparison of Snapshot and Snapshot Read Committed is complete without a discussion of the dreaded "snapshot update conflict" exception that can happen in Snapshot, but not Snapshot Read Committed.
In a nutshell, Snapshot isolation retrieves a snapshot of committed data at the start of a transaction, and then uses optimistic locking for both reads and writes. If, when attempting to commit a transaction, it turns out that something else changed some of that same data, the database will rollback the entire transaction and raise an error causing a snapshot update conflict exception in the calling code. This is because the version of data affected by the transaction is not the same at the end of the transaction as it was at the start.
Snapshot Read Committed does not suffer from this problem because it uses locking on writes (pessimistic writes) and it obtains snapshot version information of all committed data at the stat of each statement.
The possibility of snapshot update conflicts happening in Snapshot and NOT Snapshot Read Committed is an extremely significant difference between the two.
Still relevant, starting with Bill's comments I read more and made notes that might be useful to someone else.
By default single statements (including SELECT) work on "committed" data (READ COMMITTED), the question is: do they wait for data to be "idle" and stop others from working when reading?
Setting via right click DB "Properties -> Options -> Miscellaneous":
Concurrency/Blocking: Is Read Committed Snapshot On [defaults off, should be on]:
Use SNAPSHOT for select (read), do not wait for others, nor block them.
Effects operation without code change
ALTER DATABASE <dbName> SET READ_COMMITTED_SNAPSHOT [ON|OFF]
SELECT name, is_read_committed_snapshot_on FROM sys.databases
Consistency: Allow Snapshot Isolation [defaults off, debatable – OK off]:
Allow client to request SNAPSHOT across SQL statements (transactions).
Code must request "transaction" snapshots (like SET TRANSACTION ...)
ALTER DATABASE <dbName> SET ALLOW_SNAPSHOT_ISOLATION [ON|OFF]
SELECT name, snapshot_isolation_state FROM sys.databases
To the question: it is not one or the other between Read Committed Snapshot and Allow Snapshot Isolation. They are two cases of Snapshot, and either could be on or off independently, with Allow Snapshot Isolation a bit more of an advanced topic. Allow Snapshot Isolation allows code to go a step further controlling Snapshot land.
The issue seems clear if you think about one row: by default the system has no copy, so a reader has to wait if anyone else is writing, and a writer also has to wait if anyone else is reading – the row must lock all the time. Enabling "Is Read Committed Snapshot On" activates the DB to support "snapshot copies" to avoid these locks.
Rambling on...
In my opinion "Is Read Committed Snapshot On" should be TRUE for any normal MS SQLServer databases, and that it is a premature optimization that it ships FALSE by default.
However, I'm told the one row lock gets worse not only because you may be addressing multiple rows across tables, but because in SQL Server row locks are implemented using "block" level locks (locking random rows associated by storage proximity) and that there is a threshold where multiple locks trigger table locking - presumably more "optimistic" performance optimizations at the risk of blocking issues in busy databases.
Let me describe 2 points that have not been mentioned.
Firstly let's make it clear how to use both because it's not intuitive.
SNAPSHOT and READ_COMMITTED_SNAPSHOT are two different isolation levels.
SNAPSHOT is isolation level you can use in your transaction explicitly as usual:
begin transaction
set transaction isolation level snapshot;
-- ...
commit
READ_COMMITTED_SNAPSHOT can't be use like this. READ_COMMITTED_SNAPSHOT is both a database level option and an implicit/automatic isolation level. To use it, you need to enable it for the whole database:
alert database ... set read_committed_snapshot on;
What above database setting does, is that every time you run transaction like this:
begin transaction
set transaction isolation level read committed;
-- ...
commit
With this option ON, all READ_COMMITTED transactions will run under READ_COMMITTED_SNAPSHOT isolation level instead. This happens automatically, affecting all READ_COMMITTED transactions issued against database with this setting set to ON. It's not possible to run transaction under READ_COMMITTED isolation level because all transactions with this level will be automatically converted to READ_COMMITTED_SNAPSHOT.
Secondly you shouldn't blindly use READ_COMMITTED_SNAPSHOT option.
To illustrate the kind problems it can create, imagine you have simple events table like this:
create table Events (
id int not null identity(1, 1) primary key,
name nvarchar(450) not null
-- ...
)
And you poll it periodically with query like this:
begin transaction
set transaction isolation level read committed; -- automatically set to read committed snapshot when this setting is ON on database level
select top 100 * from Events where id > ${lastId} order by id asc;
commit
Above query doesn't need to be enclosed with transaction and explicit isolation level. READ_COMMITTED is default isolation level and if you invoke query without wrapping it in transaction block - it'll be implicitly run in READ_COMMITTED transaction.
You'll find that under READ_COMMITTED_SNAPSHOT isolation level auto-increment identity values may have gaps that later appear.
You can easily simulate it with insert like this:
begin transaction
insert into Events (name) values ('test 1');
waitfor delay '00:00:10'
commit
...followed by normal insert:
insert into Events (name) values ('test 2');
Your polling function invoked within 10s will return single row with id 2.
Following poll after updating lastId will return nothing. Row with id 1 had will appear after 10s.
Event with id 1 will be effectively skipped.
This will not happen if you use READ_COMMITTED without READ_COMMITTED_SNAPSHOT auto promotion option.
It's worth understanding this scenario. It's not related to the fact that IDENTITY column doesn't guarantee uniqueness. It's not related to the fact that IDENTITY column doesn't guarantee strict monotonicity. Even when both uniqueness and strict monotonicity are not violated, you still end up with gaps - possibility of seeing commits with higher ids before seeing commits with lower ids.
Under READ_COMMITTED this problem doesn't exist.
Under READ_COMMITTED you can also see gaps - ie. by transactions that rolled back. But those gaps will be permanent - ie. you are not skipping events because they will never reappear. Ie. you won't see lower ids reappearing later after you've seen higher ids.
Please understand above issue and its implications before turning READ_COMMITTED_SNAPSHOT on.
Control of this option lies in the gray area of developer vs db admin responsibility. If you're admin, you should not blindly use it as developers may have relied on READ_COMMITTED isolation semantics when developing application and turning READ_COMMITTED_SNAPSHOT may violate those assumptions in very implicit, hard to find bug way.