If i SELECT a row for updating in MS SQL Server, and want to have it locked till i either update or cancel, which option is better :-
1) Use a query hint like UPDLOCK
2) Use REPEATABLE READ isolation level for the transaction
3) any other option.
Thanks,
Chak.
If you're waiting on another resource such as an end-user, then take Dave Markle's advice and don't do it.
Otherwise, try the following T-SQL code:
BEGIN TRAN
SELECT *
FROM authors AU
WITH (HOLDLOCK, ROWLOCK)
WHERE AU.au_id = '274-80-9391'
/* Do all your stuff here while the row is locked */
COMMIT TRAN
The HOLDLOCK hint politely asks SQL Server to hold the lock until you commit the transaction. The ROWLOCK hint politely asks SQL Server to lock only this row rather than issuing a page or table lock.
Be aware that if lots of rows are affected, either SQL Server will take the initiative and escalate to page locks, or you'll have a whole army of row locks filling your server's memory and bogging down processing.
Neither. You almost never want to hold a transaction open while your user is inputting data. If you have to implement a pessimistic lock like this, people generally do it by rolling their own functionality.
Consider the full ramifications of what you are doing. I once worked on a system that implemented locking like this. You often run into tons of stale locks, and your users get confused and angry very quickly when you foist this on them. The solution for us in our case was to remove this locking functionality entirely.
just note that despite using ROWLOCK SQL Server might choose to still take a full page lock if it deems needed.
Related
I am using NHibernate to query data from a reporting database and would like to optimize READ performance. "Dirty reads" are not a concern at all. NHibernate provides Lock Modes. If I use the LockMode.UpgradeNoWait mode I can see that in the generated SQL a 'with (updlock, rowlock)' appears. I've been reading up on this, but my SQL is unfortunately not sophisticated enough to really understand the ramifications. I believe what I really want is a 'with (nolock)' statement to appear, but NHibernate does not see to provide any way of doing that.
My question then is this: Let's say my table is being written to in other transactions. Will the 'with (updlock, rowlock)' hint in a query against this table cause it to return any faster? Can it hurt performance? The query is a very simple select against a single table. No joins. There is a non-clustered index on the table that covers the query.
The updlock will place update locks on every row being touched (selected) - so this means until the end of the transaction (explicit or implicit), the row(s) touched by the SELECT will have an update lock on them which allows for other transactions to read, but not update or delete the row.
The rowlock just indicates that you want row-level locks instead of page or table locks.
That lock makes sense if you need to select first, then update a row within the same explicit transaction.
It doesn't make it run any faster, and can cause other transactions to be blocked
Apparently I was mistaken about the use of Lock modes in NHibernate. They do not have anything to do with adding the nolock hint to a query. This is the way to do it.
I'm wondering what is the benefit to use SELECT WITH (NOLOCK) on a table if the only other queries affecting that table are SELECT queries.
How is that handled by SQL Server? Would a SELECT query block another SELECT query?
I'm using SQL Server 2012 and a Linq-to-SQL DataContext.
(EDIT)
About performance :
Would a 2nd SELECT have to wait for a 1st SELECT to finish if using a locked SELECT?
Versus a SELECT WITH (NOLOCK)?
A SELECT in SQL Server will place a shared lock on a table row - and a second SELECT would also require a shared lock, and those are compatible with one another.
So no - one SELECT cannot block another SELECT.
What the WITH (NOLOCK) query hint is used for is to be able to read data that's in the process of being inserted (by another connection) and that hasn't been committed yet.
Without that query hint, a SELECT might be blocked reading a table by an ongoing INSERT (or UPDATE) statement that places an exclusive lock on rows (or possibly a whole table), until that operation's transaction has been committed (or rolled back).
Problem of the WITH (NOLOCK) hint is: you might be reading data rows that aren't going to be inserted at all, in the end (if the INSERT transaction is rolled back) - so your e.g. report might show data that's never really been committed to the database.
There's another query hint that might be useful - WITH (READPAST). This instructs the SELECT command to just skip any rows that it attempts to read and that are locked exclusively. The SELECT will not block, and it will not read any "dirty" un-committed data - but it might skip some rows, e.g. not show all your rows in the table.
On performance you keep focusing on select.
Shared does not block reads.
Shared lock blocks update.
If you have hundreds of shared locks it is going to take an update a while to get an exclusive lock as it must wait for shared locks to clear.
By default a select (read) takes a shared lock.
Shared (S) locks allow concurrent transactions to read (SELECT) a resource.
A shared lock as no effect on other selects (1 or a 1000).
The difference is how the nolock versus shared lock effects update or insert operation.
No other transactions can modify the data while shared (S) locks exist on the resource.
A shared lock blocks an update!
But nolock does not block an update.
This can have huge impacts on performance of updates. It also impact inserts.
Dirty read (nolock) just sounds dirty. You are never going to get partial data. If an update is changing John to Sally you are never going to get Jolly.
I use shared locks a lot for concurrency. Data is stale as soon as it is read. A read of John that changes to Sally the next millisecond is stale data. A read of Sally that gets rolled back John the next millisecond is stale data. That is on the millisecond level. I have a dataloader that take 20 hours to run if users are taking shared locks and 4 hours to run is users are taking no lock. Shared locks in this case cause data to be 16 hours stale.
Don't use nolocks wrong. But they do have a place. If you are going to cut a check when a byte is set to 1 and then set it to 2 when the check is cut - not a time for a nolock.
I have to add one important comment. Everyone is mentioning that NOLOCKreads only dirty data. This is not precise. It is also possible that you'll get the same row twice or the whole row is skipped during your read. The reason is that you could ask for some data at the same time when SQL Server is re-balancing b-tree.
Check another threads
https://stackoverflow.com/a/5469238/2108874
http://www.sqlmag.com/article/sql-server/quaere-verum-clustered-index-scans-part-iii.aspx)
With the NOLOCK hint (or setting the isolation level of the session to READ UNCOMMITTED) you tell SQL Server that you don't expect consistency, so there are no guarantees. Bear in mind though that "inconsistent data" does not only mean that you might see uncommitted changes that were later rolled back, or data changes in an intermediate state of the transaction. It also means that in a simple query that scans all table/index data SQL Server may lose the scan position, or you might end up getting the same row twice.
At my work, we have a very big system that runs on many PCs at the same time, with very big tables with hundreds of thousands of rows, and sometimes many millions of rows.
When you make a SELECT on a very big table, let's say you want to know every transaction a user has made in the past 10 years, and the primary key of the table is not built in an efficient way, the query might take several minutes to run.
Then, our application might me running on many user's PCs at the same time, accessing the same database. So if someone tries to insert into the table that the other SELECT is reading (in pages that SQL is trying to read), then a LOCK can occur and the two transactions block each other.
We had to add a "NO LOCK" to our SELECT statement, because it was a huge SELECT on a table that is used a lot by a lot of users at the same time and we had LOCKS all the time.
I don't know if my example is clear enough? This is a real life example.
The SELECT WITH (NOLOCK) allows reads of uncommitted data, which is equivalent to having the READ UNCOMMITTED isolation level set on your database. The NOLOCK keyword allows finer grained control than setting the isolation level on the entire database.
Wikipedia has a useful article: Wikipedia: Isolation (database systems)
It is also discussed at length in other stackoverflow articles.
select with no lock - will select records which may / may not going to be inserted. you will read a dirty data.
for example - lets say a transaction insert 1000 rows and then fails.
when you select - you will get the 1000 rows.
In my SQL tempOrder table has millions of records and with 10 trigger to update tempOrder table with another table's update.
So I want to apply apply with(NOLOCK) on table.
I know with
SELECT * FROM temporder with(NOLOCK)
This statement I can do. But is there any way to apply with(NOLOCK) directly to the table from SQL Server 2008.
The direct answer to your question is NO -- there is no option to to tell SQL to never lock tableX. With that said, your question opens up a whole series of things that should be brought up.
Isolation Level
First, the most direct way you can accomplish what you want is to use with (nolock) option or SET TRANSACTION ISLOATION LEVEL READ UNCOMMITTED (aka chaos). These options are good for the query or the duration of the connection respectively. If I chose this route I would combine it with a long running SQL Profiler trace to identify any queries taking locks on TableX.
Lock Escalation
Second, SQL Server does have a table wide LOCK_ESCALATION threshold (executed as ALTER TABLE SET LOCK_ESCALATION x where X is the number of locks or AUTO). This controls when SQL attempts to consolidate many fine grained locks into fewer coarse grained locks. Said another way, it is a numeric threshold for converting how many locks are taken out on a single database object (think index).
Overriding SQL's lock escaltion generally isn't a good idea. As the documentation states:
In most cases, the Database Engine delivers the best performance when
operating with its default settings for locking and lock escalation.
As counter intuitive as it may seem, from the scenario you described you might have some luck with fewer broad locks instead of NOLOCK. You'll need to test this theory out with a real workload to determine if its worthwhile.
Snapshot Isolation
You might also check out the SNAPSHOT isolation level. There isn't enough information in your question to know, but I suspect it would help.
Dangers of NOLOCK
With that said, as you might have picked up from #GSerg's comment, NOLOCK can be evil. No-Lock is colloquially referred to as Chaos--and for good reason. When developers first encounter NOLOCK it seems like allowing dirty reads is the only implication. There are more...
dirty data is read for inconsistent results (the common impression)
wrong data -- meaning neither consistent with the pre-write or post-write state of your data.
Hard exceptions (like error 601 due to data movement) that terminate your query
Blank data is returned
previously committed rows are missed
Malformed bytes are returned
But don't take my word for it :
Actual Email: "NoLOCK is the epitome of evil?"
SQL Sever NOLOCK hint & other poor ideas
Is the nolock hint a bad practice
this is not a table's configuration.
If you add (nolock) to the query (it is called a query hint) you are saying that when executing this (and only this) query, it wont create lock on the affected tables.
Of course, you can make this configuration permanent for the current connection by setting a transaction isolation level to read uncommitted for example: set transaction isolation level read uncommitted. But again, it is valid only until that connection is open.
Perhaps if you explain in more details what you are trying to achieve, we can better help you.
You cannot change the default isolation level (except for snapshot) for a table or a database, however you can change it for all read queries in one transaction:
set transaction isolation level read uncommitted
See msdn for more information.
I am using Entity Framework, and I am inserting records into our database which include a blob field. The blob field can be up to 5 MB of data.
When inserting a record into this table, does it lock the whole table?
So if you are querying any data from the table, will it block until the insert is done (I realise there are ways around this, but I am talking by default)?
How long will it take before it causes a deadlock? Will that time depend on how much load is on the server, e.g. if there is not much load, will it take longer to cause a deadlock?
Is there a way to monitor and see what is locked at any particular time?
If each thread is doing queries on single tables, is there then a case where blocking can occur? So isn't it the case that a deadlock can only occur if you have a query which has a join and is acting on multiple tables?
This is taking into account that most of my code is just a bunch of select statements, not heaps of long running transactions or anything like that.
Holy cow, you've got a lot of questions in here, heh. Here's a few answers:
When inserting a record into this table, does it lock the whole table?
Not by default, but if you use the TABLOCK hint or if you're doing certain kinds of bulk load operations, then yes.
So if you are querying any data from the table will it block until the insert is done (I realise there are ways around this, but I am talking by default)?
This one gets a little trickier. If someone's trying to select data from a page in the table that you've got locked, then yes, you'll block 'em. You can work around that with things like the NOLOCK hint on a select statement or by using Read Committed Snapshot Isolation. For a starting point on how isolation levels work, check out Kendra Little's isolation levels poster.
How long will it take before it causes a deadlock? Will that time depend on how much load is on the server, e.g. if there is not much load will it take longer to cause a deadlock?
Deadlocks aren't based on time - they're based on dependencies. Say we've got this situation:
Query A is holding a bunch of locks, and to finish his query, he needs stuff that's locked by Query B
Query B is also holding a bunch of locks, and to finish his query, he needs stuff that's locked by Query A
Neither query can move forward (think Mexican standoff) so SQL Server calls it a draw, shoots somebody's query in the back, releases his locks, and lets the other query keep going. SQL Server picks the victim based on which one will be less expensive to roll back. If you want to get fancy, you can use SET DEADLOCK_PRIORITY LOW on particular queries to paint targets on their back, and SQL Server will shoot them first.
Is there a way to monitor and see what is locked at any particular time?
Absolutely - there's Dynamic Management Views (DMVs) you can query like sys.dm_tran_locks, but the easiest way is to use Adam Machanic's free sp_WhoIsActive stored proc. It's a really slick replacement for sp_who that you can call like this:
sp_WhoIsActive #get_locks = 1
For each running query, you'll get a little XML that describes all of the locks it holds. There's also a Blocking column, so you can see who's blocking who. To interpret the locks being held, you'll want to check the Books Online descriptions of lock types.
If each thread is doing queries on single tables, is there then a case where blocking can occur? So isn't it the case that a deadlock can only occur if you have a query which has a join and is acting on multiple tables?
Believe it or not, a single query can actually deadlock itself, and yes, queries can deadlock on just one table. To learn even more about deadlocks, check out The Difficulty with Deadlocks by Jeremiah Peschka.
If you have direct control over the SQL, you can force row level locking using:
INSERT INTO WITH (ROWLOCK) MyTable(Id, BigColumn)
VALUES(...)
These two answers might be helpful:
Is it possible to force row level locking in SQL Server?
Locking a table with a select in Entity Framework
To view current held locks in Management Studio, look under the server, then under Management/Activity Monitor. It has a section for locks by object, so you should be able to see whether the inserts are really causing a problem.
Deadlock errors generally return quite quickly. Deadlock states do not occur as a result of a timeout error occurring while waiting for a lock. Deadlock is detected by SQL Server by looking for cycles in the lock requests.
The best answer I can come up with is: It depends.
The best way to check is to find your connection SPID and use sp_lock SPID to check if the lock mode is X on the TAB type. You can also verify the table name with SELECT OBJECT_NAME(objid). I also like to use the below query to check for locking.
SELECT RESOURCE_TYPE,RESOURCE_SUBTYPE,DB_NAME(RESOURCE_DATABASE_ID) AS 'DATABASE',resource_database_id DBID,
RESOURCE_DESCRIPTION,RESOURCE_ASSOCIATED_ENTITY_ID,REQUEST_MODE,REQUEST_SESSION_ID,
CASE WHEN RESOURCE_TYPE = 'OBJECT' THEN OBJECT_NAME(RESOURCE_ASSOCIATED_ENTITY_ID,RESOURCE_DATABASE_ID) ELSE '' END OBJETO
FROM SYS.DM_TRAN_LOCKS (NOLOCK)
WHERE REQUEST_SESSION_ID = --SPID here
In SQL Server 2008 (and later) you can disable the lock escalation on the table and enforce a WITH (ROWLOCK) in your insert clause effectively forcing a rowlock. This can't be done prior to SQL Server 2008 (you can write WITH ROWLOCK, but SQL Server can choose to ignore it).
I'm speaking generals here, and I don't have much experience with BLOBs as I usually advise developers to avoid them, especially if larger than 1 MB.
We're using a SQL Server 2005 database (no row versioning) with a huge select statement, and we're seeing it block other statements from running (seen using sp_who2). I didn't realise SELECT statements could cause blocking - is there anything I can do to mitigate this?
SELECT can block updates. A properly designed data model and query will only cause minimal blocking and not be an issue. The 'usual' WITH NOLOCK hint is almost always the wrong answer. The proper answer is to tune your query so it does not scan huge tables.
If the query is untunable then you should first consider SNAPSHOT ISOLATION level, second you should consider using DATABASE SNAPSHOTS and last option should be DIRTY READS (and is better to change the isolation level rather than using the NOLOCK HINT). Note that dirty reads, as the name clearly states, will return inconsistent data (eg. your total sheet may be unbalanced).
From documentation:
Shared (S) locks allow concurrent transactions to read (SELECT) a resource under pessimistic concurrency control. For more information, see Types of Concurrency Control. No other transactions can modify the data while shared (S) locks exist on the resource. Shared (S) locks on a resource are released as soon as the read operation completes, unless the transaction isolation level is set to repeatable read or higher, or a locking hint is used to retain the shared (S) locks for the duration of the transaction.
A shared lock is compatible with another shared lock or an update lock, but not with an exlusive lock.
That means that your SELECT queries will block UPDATE and INSERT queries and vice versa.
A SELECT query will place a temporary shared lock when it reads a block of values from the table, and remove it when it done reading.
For the time the lock exists, you will not be able to do anything with the data in the locked area.
Two SELECT queries will never block each other (unless they are SELECT FOR UPDATE)
You can enable SNAPSHOT isolation level on your database and use it, but note that it will not prevent UPDATE queries from being locked by SELECT queries (which seems to be your case).
It, though, will prevent SELECT queries from being locked by UPDATE.
Also note that SQL Server, unlike Oracle, uses lock manager and keeps it locks in an in-memory linked list.
That means that under heavy load, the mere fact of placing and removing a lock may be slow, since the linked list should itself be locked by the transaction thread.
To perform dirty reads you can either:
using (new TransactionScope(TransactionScopeOption.Required,
new TransactionOptions {
IsolationLevel = System.Transactions.IsolationLevel.ReadUncommitted }))
{
//Your code here
}
or
SelectCommand = "SELECT * FROM Table1 WITH (NOLOCK) INNER JOIN Table2 WITH (NOLOCK) ..."
remember that you have to write WITH (NOLOCK) after every table you want to dirty read
You could set the transaction level to Read Uncommitted
You might also get deadlocks:
"deadlocks involving only one table"
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/alexander_kuznetsov/archive/2009/01/01/reproducing-deadlocks-involving-only-one-table.aspx
and or incorrect results:
"Selects under READ COMMITTED and REPEATABLE READ may return incorrect results."
http://www2.sqlblog.com/blogs/alexander_kuznetsov/archive/2009/04/10/selects-under-read-committed-and-repeatable-read-may-return-incorrect-results.aspx
You can use WITH(READPAST) table hint. It's different than the WITH(NOLOCK). It will get the data before the transaction was started and will not block anyone. Imagine that, you ran the statement before the transaction was started.
SELECT * FROM table1 WITH (READPAST)