symfony2 doctrine table lock - database

I am not sure this is the preferred method, but I want to present my solution and see if you symfony2 wizards out there have enlightening comments on this.
I am registering financial transactions in a table, and each user has their own series of serial numbers (i.e. each user's transaction table will start with 1).
I understand that this must be handled by code, and then I run the risk of having duplicate entries for a user if let's say two people would be logged on to the same user account registering transactions, or the user triggers multiple transaction writes at the same time and Doctrine were to do the SELECTs in both operations before the firs write fires...
$em->getConnection()->exec('LOCK TABLES transaction WRITE;'); //lock for write access
$results = $em->createQuery("SELECT MAX(t.serial) FROM ekonomiKassabokBundle:Transaction t WHERE t.user = $userId")->getResult();
$temp = $results[0];
$max_serial = $temp[1];
$new_serial = $max_serial + 1;
$entity->setSerial($new_serial);
$em->persist($entity);
$em->flush();
$em->getConnection()->exec('UNLOCK TABLES;');
The above code gives me...
SQLSTATE[HY000]: General error: 1100 Table 't0_' was not locked with LOCK TABLES
Or is this perhaps even overkill, should I just skip the table lock?

I eventually managed to find the solution, well... a solution.
Actually from what I understand it is pretty stupid : when you lock tables MySQL expects ALL the tables you will use until the unlock to be locked and this must happen in one LOCK TABLES statement.
Now Doctrine will systematically use table aliases for whatever reason and MySQL apparently can't figure out that the aliases refer to locked tables... so you have to specifically lock all aliases that will be used yourself!
Try:
$em->getConnection()->exec('LOCK TABLES transaction as t0_ WRITE;');
And if you have another error after this (it will happen if you do several queries while the table is locked), just keep adding locks to the additional aliases, for instance:
$em->getConnection()->exec('LOCK TABLES transaction as t0_ WRITE, transaction as t0 WRITE, transaction as t1 WRITE;');
Fortunately it seems doctrine always uses the same table aliases, so once you have got it down it should keep working!

Related

How to acquire lock on a table and not let other transaction get read access?

I am having a nodejs program which uses sequelize to create tables and insert data based on it.
Now, in future we are going to have multiple instances of the program and so we don't want multiple instances to read from the table during program startup so that only one instance can do the setup thing if required and other instance shouldn't get 'any access' to the table until the first instance has completed it's work.
I have checked 'transaction locking' - shared and exclusive but both of them seems to be giving reading access to the tables which I don't want.
My requirement is specifically that once a transaction acquires lock on a table, other transaction shouldn't be able to read from that table unless first one has completed it's work. How can I do this?
In MySQL use LOCK TABLES to lock an entire table.
In postgresql LOCK TABLE whatever IN EXCLUSIVE MODE; does the trick.
For best results have your app, when starting, look for a particular table. Do something simple and fast such as SELECT id FROM whatever LIMIT 1; to probe whether the table exists. If your app gets an exception because the table isn't there, then do
CREATE TABLE whatever ....;
LOCK TABLES whatever WRITE;
from the app creating the table. It blocks access to the table from all instances of your app except the one that gets the LOCK.
Once your table is locked, the initial SELECT I suggested will block from other clients. There's a possible race condition if two clients try to create the table more-or-less concurrently. But the extra CREATE TABLE will throw an exception.
Note: if you LOCK more than one table, and it's possible to run the code from more than one instance of the app, always always lock the tables in the same order, or you have the potential for a deadlock.
As documented in the manual the statement to lock a table is, LOCK TABLE ...
If you lock a table in exclusive mode, then no other access is allowed - not even a SELECT. Exclusive mode is the default:
If no lock mode is specified, then ACCESS EXCLUSIVE, the most restrictive mode, is used.
The manual explains the different lock modes:
ACCESS EXCLUSIVE
This mode guarantees that the holder is the only transaction accessing the table in any way.

Why does postgres lock one table when inserting into another

My source tables called Event sitting in a different database and it has millions of rows. Each event can have an action of DELETE, UPDATE or NEW.
We have a Java process that goes through these events in the order they were created and do all sort of rules and then insert the results into multiple tables for look up, analyse etc..
I am using JdbcTemplate and using batchUpdate to delete and upsert to Postgres DB in a sequential order right now, but I'd like to be able to parallel too. Each batch is 1,000 entities to be insert/upserted or deleted.
However, currently even doing in a sequential manner, Postgres locks queries somehow which I don't know much about and why.
Here are some of the codes
entityService.deleteBatch(deletedEntities);
indexingService.deleteBatch(deletedEntities);
...
entityService.updateBatch(allActiveEntities);
indexingService.updateBatch(....);
Each of these services are doing insert/delete into different tables. They are in one transaction though.
The following query
SELECT
activity.pid,
activity.usename,
activity.query,
blocking.pid AS blocking_id,
blocking.query AS blocking_query
FROM pg_stat_activity AS activity
JOIN pg_stat_activity AS blocking ON blocking.pid = ANY(pg_blocking_pids(activity.pid));
returns
Query being blocked: "insert INTO ENTITY (reference, seq, data) VALUES($1, $2, $3) ON CONFLICT ON CONSTRAINT ENTITY_c DO UPDATE SET data = $4",
Blockking query: delete from ENTITY_INDEX where reference = $1
There are no foreign constraints between these tables. And we do have indexes so that we can run queries for our processing as part of the process.
Why would one completely different table can block the other tables? And how can we go about resolving this?
Your query is misleading.
What it shows as “blocking query” is really the last statement that ran in the blocking transaction.
It was probably a previous statement in the same transaction that caused entity (or rather a row in it) to be locked.

Nhibernate .SaveOrUpdate, how to get if row was update or not, means RowCount

I am updating a column in a SQL table and I want to check if it was updated successfully or it was updated already and my query didn't do anything
as we get ##rowcount in SQL Server.
In my case, I want to update a column named lockForProcessing, so if it is already processing, then my query would not affect any row, it means someone else is already processing it, else I would process it.
If I understand you correctly, your problem is related to a multi threading / concurrency problem, where the same table may be updated simultaneously.
You may want to have a look at the :
Chapter 11. Transactions And Concurrency
The ISession is not threadsafe!
The entity is not stored the moment the code session.SaveOrUpdate() is executed, but typically after transaction.Commit().
stored and commited are two different things.
The entity is stored after any session.Flush(). Depending on the IsolationLevel, the entity won't be seen by other transactions.
The entity is commited after a transaction.Commit(). A commit also flushes.
Maybe all you need to do is choose the right IsolationLevel when beginning transactions and then read the table row to get the current value:
using (var transaction = session.BeginTransaction(IsolationLevel.Serializable))
{
session.Get(); // Read your row
transaction.Commit();
}
Maybe it is easier to create some locking or pipeline mechanism in your application code though. Without knowing more about who is accessing the database (other transactions, sessions, processes?) it is hard to answer more precisely.

Sql Server 2005 - manage concurrency on tables

I've got in an ASP.NET application this process :
Start a connection
Start a transaction
Insert into a table "LoadData" a lot of values with the SqlBulkCopy class with a column that contains a specific LoadId.
Call a stored procedure that :
read the table "LoadData" for the specific LoadId.
For each line does a lot of calculations which implies reading dozens of tables and write the results into a temporary (#temp) table (process that last several minutes).
Deletes the lines in "LoadDate" for the specific LoadId.
Once everything is done, write the result in the result table.
Commit transaction or rollback if something fails.
My problem is that if I have 2 users that start the process, the second one will have to wait that the previous has finished (because the insert seems to put an exclusive lock on the table) and my application sometimes falls in timeout (and the users are not happy to wait :) ).
I'm looking for a way to be able to have the users that does everything in parallel as there is no interaction, except the last one: writing the result. I think that what is blocking me is the inserts / deletes in the "LoadData" table.
I checked the other transaction isolation levels but it seems that nothing could help me.
What would be perfect would be to be able to remove the exclusive lock on the "LoadData" table (is it possible to force SqlServer to only lock rows and not table ?) when the Insert is finished, but without ending the transaction.
Any suggestion?
Look up SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL READ COMMITTED SNAPSHOT in Books OnLine.
Transactions should cover small and fast-executing pieces of SQL / code. They have a tendancy to be implemented differently on different platforms. They will lock tables and then expand the lock as the modifications grow thus locking out the other users from querying or updating the same row / page / table.
Why not forget the transaction, and handle processing errors in another way? Is your data integrity truely being secured by the transaction, or can you do without it?
if you're sure that there is no issue with cioncurrent operations except the last part, why not start the transaction just before those last statements, Whichever they are that DO require isolation), and commit immediately after they succeed.. Then all the upfront read operations will not block each other...

Long query prevents inserts

I have a query that runs each night on a table with a bunch of records (200,000+). This application simply iterates over the results (using a DbDataReader in a C# app if that's relevant) and processes each one. The processing is done outside of the database altogether. During the time that the application is iterating over the results I am unable to insert any records into the table that I am querying for. The insert statements just hang and eventually timeout. The inserts are done in completely separate applications.
Does SQL Server lock the table down while a query is being done? This seems like an overly aggressive locking policy. I could understand how there could be a conflict between the query and newly inserted records, but I would be perfectly ok if records inserted after the query started were simply not included in the results.
Any ways to avoid this?
Update:
The WITH (NOLOCK) definitely did the trick. As some of you pointed out, this isn't the cleanest approach. I can't really query everything into memory given the amount of records and some of the columns in this table are binary (some records are actually about 1MB of total data).
The other suggestion, was to query for batches of records at a time. This isn't a bad idea either, but it does bring up a new issue: database independent queries. Right now the application can work with a variety of different databases (Oracle, MySQL, Access, etc). Each database has their own way of limiting the rows returned in a query. But maybe this is better saved for another question?
Back on topic, the "WITH (NOLOCK)" clause is certainly SQL Server specific, is there any way to keep this out of my query (and thus preventing it from working with other databases)? Maybe I could somehow specify a parameter on the DbCommand object? Or can I specify the locking policy at the database level? That is, change some properties in SQL Server itself that will prevent the table from locking like this by default?
If you're using SQL Server 2005+, then how about giving the new MVCC snapshot isolation a try. I've had good results with it:
ALTER DATABASE SET SINGLE_USER WITH ROLLBACK IMMEDIATE;
ALTER DATABASE SET READ_COMMITTED_SNAPSHOT ON;
ALTER DATABASE SET MULTI_USER;
It will stop readers blocking writers and vice-versa. It eliminates many deadlocks, at very little cost.
It depends what Isolation Level you are using. You might try doing your selects using the With (NoLock) hint, that will prevent the read locks, but will also mean the data being read might change before the selecting transaction completes.
The first thing you could do is try to add the "WITH (NOLOCK)" to any tables you have in your query. This will "Tame down" the locking that SQL Server does. An example of using "NOLOCK" on a join is as follows...
SELECT COUNT(Users.UserID)
FROM Users WITH (NOLOCK)
JOIN UsersInUserGroups WITH (NOLOCK) ON
Users.UserID = UsersInUserGroups.UserID
Another option is to use a dataset instead of a datareader. A datareader is a "fire hose" technique that stays connected to the tables while your program is processing and basically handling the table row by row through the hose. A dataset uses a "disconnected" methodology where all the data is loaded into memory and then the connection is closed. Your program can then loop the data in memory without having to worry about locking. However, if this is a really large amount of data, there maybe memory issues.
Hope this helps.
If you add the WITH (NOLOCK) hint after a table name in the FROM clause it should make sure it doesn't lock, and it doesn't care about reading data that is locked. You might get "out of date" results if you are writing at the same time, but if you don't care about that then you should be fine.
I reckon your best way of avoiding this is to do it in SQL rather than in the application.
You can add a
WAITFOR DELAY '000:00:01'
at the end of each loop iteration to provide time for other processes to run - just make sure that you haven't initiated a TRANSACTION such that all other processes are locked out anyway
The query is performing a table lock, thus the inserts are failing.
It sounds to me like you're keeping a lock on the table while processing the results.
You should instead load them into an array or collection of some sort, and close the database connection.
Then process the array.
In addition, while you're doing your select use either:
WITH(NOLOCK) or WITH(READPAST)
I'm not a big fan of using lock hints as you could end up with dirty reads or other weirdness. A couple of other ideas:
Can you break the number of rows down so you don't grab 200k at a time? Is there a way to tell whether you've processed a row - a flag, a timestamp - you could use to make the query? Your query could be 'SELECT TOP 5000 ...' getting a differnet 5k each time. Shorter queries mean shorter-lived locks.
If you can use smaller sets of rows I like the DataSet vs. IDataReader idea. You will be loading data into memory and not consuming any SQL locks, but the amount of memory can cause other problems.
-Brian
You should be able to set the isolation level at the .NET level so that you don't have to include the WITH (NOLOCK) hint.
If you want to go with the batching option, you should be able to specify the Rowcount setting from the .NET level which would tell the database to only return n number of records. By setting these settings at the .NET level they should become database independent and work across all the platforms.

Resources