Hi
Is it possible to force row level locking in one or more tables in
some database. We have some problems when SQL Server decides to choose
page- or table-level locking.
We are using SQL Server 2000.
Best regards
Aarno
Is it possible to force row level locking in Sql server 2015 before inserting the data and release the same afterwords..find the code for which we would like to impliment the same
DECLARE @TravelAgentid Varchar(20)
DECLARE @Date DATETIME2(7)
DECLARE @InsDate DATETIME2(7)
set @TravelAgentid ='A101'
[code]....
Hi,We have encountered deadlock on a table which is used to generatesequential numbers for different categories eg typical entriesCategory ValueTRADE_NO 1456JOB_NO 267.....The applications reference the relevant category applicable to themand updatethe Value accordingly. This is table is very small, occupying 1 page.However, it has no index as it was not seen to be appropriate for atable this size.However, can someone please advise whether1. An index is required for row level locking2. If an index on a table as small as above is likely to reduce thedeadlock rate.Also, please consider the following but which I am not sure isrelevant for above query.We noted that when we migrated the database concerned from SQL 6.5 toSQL 2000, using DTS, that the database was NOT strictly in SQL 2000format for non clustered indexes (NC) ie the clustered key was notpart of the NC index until the clustered index was rebuilt.Given this should I just rebuild this table with a fake index and dropit thereafter.We are aware of the different techniques used to avoid deadlocks (egtables accessed in same order etc) and have , as much as possible,implemented those practices.I thank you in advance for any help you may be able to offer.ThanksPuvendran
View 12 Replies View RelatedHi, Can anybody please explain me, what is low level and high level locking in SQL Server 2005 database.
Also what is the name of process which converts low level locking into high level locking and vise versa.
-Sanjeev
I have a busy transactional table , I wanna use row level locking mechanism in msSQL.
SELECT * FROM PARTY WITH (UPDLOCK ROWLOCK)
where LastName ='Clinton'
is there any downsides of this approach?
I used sp_indexoption to allow row locks and disallow page locks on all indexes of a heavily contented table (lots of concurrent selects/inserts/updates). The first error I saw was "The SQL Server cannot obtain a LOCK resource at this time. Rerun your statement when there are fewer active users or ask the system administrator to check the SQL Server lock and memory configuration.". I restarted the sql server and everything is ok (the server is not very powerful and will be beefed up).
My question is that with the above settings, will the select statements acquire row-level shared locks as well? Since our select queries are fairly complicated, my main concern is that we may frequently run of of resource even with a more powerful machine. Is my concern valid or I got everything wrong?
Thanks a lot.
Hi there,
yes, There is a 'insert row level locking' but
Is there anything for delete or update row level locking?
We keep geting deadlock problem with our application with multi-users. First we ran into the deadlock on INSERT. By setting 'insert row level locking' help us to go a little bit further but later we run into deadlock with DELETE. For my knowlege, DELETE and UPDATE requires exclusive page lock. Might be I am out of date.
Thanks in advance for your help
Tung Nguyen
How do I do row-level locking on SQL Server?Thanks,Nid
View 16 Replies View RelatedI am writing a VB program, which needs to update record A in one table using transaction control (BeginTrans & CommitTrans). But due to the page-level locking, before the "CommitTrans", other users couldn't not read other records in the same table.
Is there any way that I can do the record/row level locking? If possible, could you provide me some VB source code? Such as how to use "DBCC ROWLOCK" or how to set for row-level locking.
Thanks for your kind help.
SQL Server 6.5 on-line help states that IRL is only effective if the table has a unique clustered index defined on the table. IF this true and if so does anyone know why.
thanks,
Stu.
We have one table.We have updated the status for one column to 1 and we did not committed the transaction. Can we do an another update on another row.
In below example i am updating GEO_D and transaction is not committed. Now my requirement is we have to update other records (not Geo_D). If  try to update GEo_D it should wait.Â
IF OBJECT_ID('TEMPDB..##TEMP_STSTUS') IS NOT NULL
DROP TABLE ##TEMP_STSTUS
CREATE TABLE ##TEMP_STSTUS
(
 ID INT IDENTITY(1,1)
 ,NAME VARCHAR(10)
 ,STSTUS VARCHAR(10)
)
INSERT INTO ##TEMP_STSTUS SELECT 'GEO_D','0'
[Code] ....
I'm running SQL Server 7.0. I have a DB running with 6.5 compatibility mode.
Do INSERT, UPDATE or DELETE queries use row level locking in this DB ?
(I know if I set the db compatibility mode to 7.0 row level locking will be enabled)
Thanks in advance for your help.
I m using sql server 2005
i have got one request ,to apply page level locking on database
can nyone how it is done
i can do that for a single script and for session(transaction isolation level)
but dont know about database level locking scheme
thanks in advance
Hi all
We are writing a web-based multi-user call centre application application.
we are getting concurrency problems as you would expect with a multiuser application.
the application is made for callers who will bring up a different contact to call based on some predefined priority. now because the algorithm that prioritises the contacts takes a good 2 seconds to run, if 2 different caller request for the next prioritised contact, they will retrieve the same contact.
The only way that we think can resolve this problem is by building a queue. The queue would be implemented as a table, the particular implementation of this queue would be, when ever someone retrieves an entry from the queue, a background process will go on and generate a new queued item, i.e. in a FIFO manner. So that's how we think we should implement the queue.
Now come the question how to implement it. My idea is to have row level locking and a trigger to remove queue items from the queue. so that once one caller have looked at one of the item in the queue, another user can't look at the same item.
Any suggestions as to how i might be able to avoid concurrency problems?
What do you all think of my idea of implementing the FIFO queue?/
Is it possible to do row level locking in such a way that other users won't even be able to read the locked entry??
James :)
I am running one maintenance plan which includes just "Chech DB Integrity" and "Reorganised Index". But it failed and I am getting following error:-
 Â
Failed-1073548784) Executing the query "ALTER INDEX [CgiExclusion_ProfileId] ON [dbo].[CgiExclusion] REORGANIZE WITH ( LOB_COMPACTION = ON )" failed with the following error: "The index "CgiExclusion_ProfileId" (partition 1) on table "CgiExclusion" cannot be reorganized because page level locking is disabled.". Possible failure reasons: Problems with the query, "ResultSet" property not set correctly, parameters not set correctly, or connection not established correctly.
I have a question on locking pattern of read committed with snapshot isolation level that when two transaction update two different records then why do they block to each other even if they have previous committed value (old version of record).
I executed the below batch from a query window in SSMS
--Session 1:
use adventureworks
create table marbles (id int primary key, color char(5))
insert marbles values(1, 'Black')
insert marbles values(2, 'White')
alter database adventureworks set read_committed_snapshot on
set transaction isolation level read committed
begin tran
update marbles set color = 'Black' where color = 'White'
--commit tran
Before committing the first transaction I executed below query from second query window in SSMS
--Session 2:
use adventureworks
set transaction isolation level read committed
begin tran
update marbles set color = 'White' where color = 'Black'
commit tran
Here the first session blocks to second session. These same transactions execute simultaneuosly in snapshot isolation level. So my question is why this blocking is required in read committed with snapshot isolation level?
Thanks & Regards,
Subhash Chandra
We are using an Access 2000 project to view our SQL Tables and using Access 2000 Runtime to Access the forms in the project. We have written in a locking system in VB and removed the video controls to prevent users from accessing the same records. But of course now we need to make the video controls available. This has now thrown up the problem of multiple users accessing the same records. We have tried to write code to lock records when then video controls are used but this is not working as well as we hoped. Can anyone please suggest any way of setting up locking on SQL using triggers from the Access frontend? or any other types of locking systems that could be written in the Access front end.
View 1 Replies View RelatedHi experts;
I have a problem with unicode character 0x2300
I created this table
create table testunicode (Bez nchar(128))
Insert Data
insert into testunicode (Bez)values('Œ€„¢')
with 2 Unicode characters
Œ€ = 0x2300
„¢ = 0x2122
Selecting the data
select Bez from testunicode
I see
"?„¢"
„¢ = 0x2122 is ok but instead of 0x2300 there is 0x3f
When I modify the insert statement like that ( 8960 = 0x2300 )
insert into testunicode (Bez)values(NCHAR(8960)+'„¢')
and select again voila i see
"Œ€„¢"
Does anyone have an idea?
Thanks
I am trying to 'load' a copy of a SQLServer 2000 database to SQLServer 2005 Express (on another host). The copy was provided by someone else - it came to me as a MDF file only, no LDF file.
I have tried to Attach the database and it fails with a failure to load the LDF. Is there any way to bypass this issue without the LDF or do I have to have that?
The provider of the database says I can create a new database and just point to the MDF as the data source but I can't seem to find a way to do that? I am using SQL Server Management Studio Express.
Thanks!!
Access 2000 connected to SQL 2000Is there a way to initiate Sql Replication via code from within Access?All Replication jobs are setup to run on demand. I would like to beable to click a command button in Access to start the jobs.Can someone point me in the right direction?ThanksDale
View 2 Replies View RelatedI have an app that uses a sqlserver 2000 jdbc driver to connect to a sqlserver 2000.
Is it possible to do a direct replacement of sqlserver 2000 with sqlserver 2005 express just by reconfiguring the app to point to the express? The app would still be using the sqlserver 2000 jdbc driver to try and make the connection.
If that is a possibility, what can be some differences in the configuration? Previously with 2000 the config information I entered is:
server name: "machinename"( or ip). I've also tried "machiname/SQLEXPRESS"
DB name: name of db instance
port: 1433(default)
user and pass.
My attempts so far results in
"java.sql.SQLException: [Microsoft][SQLServer 2000 Driver for JDBC]Error establishing socket."
and
"java.sql.SQLException: [Microsoft][SQLServer 2000 Driver for JDBC]Unable to connect. Invalid URL."
Hi Friends,
Can some please let me know the differences between sqlserver 2000 and sqlserver 7.0
Insert or update statements seems to be locking entire page or table rather than locking
the corresponding row to be inserted or updated.
lets assume the table with 3 rows.
scenario 1)
In transaction A, I'm updating the 3'rd row. and in another transaction B I'm reading
row 1.
Transaction B seems to be waiting for transaction A to finish before returning the select results.
Scenario 2)
In transaction A, I'm inserting new row (4'th row) and in another transaction B I'm reading
row 1.
here as well trasaction B does not return the row 1 unless transaction A is complete.
Select operation is blocked due to insert.
Ideally in both the scenarios , read operation should have returned the results without waiting
for update/insert to finish. As the read is being done on different rows than that of being updated
or inserted.
I have tried both the insert/update as well as select queries with all the possible locking hints
such as ROWLOCK, READCOMMITED, UPDLOCK etc...
The only way select query returns the row without blocking is by using the NOLOCK locking hint. But then this is
not the proper solution as it gives us the dirty read.
Please suggest me any solution or workaround for above issue.
Thanks in advance. What is maximum SQL Server database (*.mdf) file size with SQL Server 2000 as part of Microsoft Small Business Server 2000? (Database files were limited to 10 GB in SBS 4.5 with SQLServer 7.0... has this changed?).
View 1 Replies View RelatedHi, I wonder if anyone can shed some light on this issue -
We have a client/server program for MSSQL7 and MSSQL2000.
When running client/server - we have our own broker, etc,
the program ends up locking itself on SQL2000; this is not a problem on SQL7.
We noticed that it seems some system tables locking tempdb.
We also noticed that SQL2000 no longer has insert-into/bulkcopy option like SQL7. But, here we don't have temporary tables at all. It's just that we found the lockings in tempdb caused by some sysobjects, sysindexes, etc.
Also, this does not happen to all the systems we have. Some of our machine does not have the self-lock problem; most of the machines have this problem though.
If we don't run client/server, then the program works fine.
Same logic, the difference is when we use client/server logic to connect to the remote SQLServer 2000 server, the locking might happen on most of our machines.
Anyone is familiar with tempdb and locking issues, please provide some hint??? Is it possible that there are some system parameters that we can set to avoid the problem. We haven't found out why some of our machines do not have problem, while most of the machines have this locking problem.
The program is written using ODBC.
Many thanks in advance.
HIBA International
We are running a 3rd party ETL tool to populate a denormailized version of a production database for reports. Everything works fine 95% of the time. However there is a semi-rare occurence of the ETL tool hanging up. The norm is for the tool to take about 5 times longer than usual, but it still works. Over the weekend however it through an error saying:
The SQL Server cannot obtain a LOCK resource at this time. Rerun your statement when there are fewer active users or ask the system administrator to check the SQL Server lock and memory configuration.
The reports are run through Crystal using stored procs and are all basically select statements
So my question(s) are the following:
1. What kind of lock would a report put on a table (select statement)
2. Would it make sense to change stored procs to use WITH NOLOCK?
3. Or is something else going on?
Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
Hi, I wanted to see what are all the users in a windows nt group that has a group access to sql server 2000. I have a windows 2000 group access to sqlserver 2000 as "xxxsomegroup". How can I list all users that belongs to this windows 200 group? is there any stored procedure to find out this?
any information could be greatly appreciated.
thanks
I recently had to reinstall a new instance of SQLServer 2000, but was unable to use the previous server name. As a result, my Access2000 front end is not happy with it's linked tables. I can't seem to find anyplace within Access to universally change the address of the SQLServer used as the back-end for all linked tables.
When I do try to access the linked tables through Access, I get an error, and the option to change the server location. When I try to type-in the new SQLServer location, there is an attempt to reconnect to SQLServer, but a whole lot of errors are generated, and none of the data is transferred into the Access table.
I really don't want to have to re-do my Access front end, so it seems it would be easiest to somehow reinstall SQLServer to have the same server location it used to. Is there a good way to completely erase all traces of SQLServer so that I can have better luck reinstalling it to the same location it used to be in? Just using the uninstall program from SQLServer doesn't seem to be cutting it.
Thanks!
When I try to make a connection to an Access .mdb I get the following error:
"Unable to open application. The workgroup information file is missing or opened exclusively by another user"
Yet, I am able to open the file through Access and have necessary permissions and I know no one else has it opened. The mdb is password protected and I have provided the correct login information in the DTS connection.
Hi guys,
I have a performance related question about the DTS package in sqlserver 2000 which i have developed
We have developed a DTS package which will migrate a view 'ATTRITION' from Sqlserver 2000 to an Oracle database.The design of the package is as follows
First step: It checks for the existance of the table 'ATTRITION' in oracle database, if table 'ATTRITION' is not there it will create a table called 'ATTRITION' in the oracle db.If the table 'ATTRITION' is already present in the oracle db,then the table is truncated.
Second step: The view 'ATTRITION' is migrated to Oracle table 'ATTRITION'.
For the migration, i have used a connection object which connects to sqlserver 2000 and for oracle connection i have used another connection object 'Microsoft ODBC driver for oracle' and i have joined both the connection objects with 'Transform data task' task which maps one to one from sqlserver 2000 where view 'ATTRITION' exists with oracle database where Table 'ATTRITION' exists.
Roughly i have around 65000 rows in 'ATTRITION' view of sqlserver 2000 which needs to be migrated.When im running the package on my system it takes around 4 minutes to migrate all the rows but when im running it on the server it takes a lot lot of time more than 1 hour.
The view definition im using has more than 10 tables joined together.But if its a problem of query used in the view,and if i run the view seperately it quickly displays the data hardly takes 1 minute. and even if i run the package on my local pc it doenst take much time.Now my confusion is why its taking soo much time on server.If i create a indexed view then will it solve my problem.Please suggest...
Thanks in advance
REgards
Arvind L
Good afternoon everyone,
I hope that I am not asking a question which has been answered many times in the past, I did a search but could not find an answer. These may be beginner questions, so bear with me as I am something of a beginner.
This week our organization updated from SQL 2000 to SQL 2005. We are using a Microsoft Access front end for this data and the information is entered through forms into the correct tables. When our researchers are enter the information they also have to sometimes search existing information to ensure they do not duplicate what is already in there. For this we use several access queries. This has worked well on the SQL 2000 server without any issues. However, now that we are on 2005 we are starting to recieve ODBC Call fail errors and errors which specify that they are a result of a deadlock. My first question is, are the ODBC call fail errors possibly locks which caused the ODBC connection to time out? My second question is why am I recieving these errors in 2005 but not 2000?
Thanks in advance for any help
- Hitz
This is a solution for a very specific problem, and it's one that you'll hardly ever use, but it's important to know about that one scenario where it can save your neck. Ordinarily, stored procedures are only recompiled if they're no longer in the procedure cache. But if a stored procedure's execution plan is still in the cache, then SQL Server reuses the compiled storedprocedure and its existing execution plan. This is almost always the best course of action. Almost always, but not always.Sometimes, however, reusing an existing plan doesn't offer the most efficient performance. Imagine, for example, that your stored procedure accepts a parameter that determines the natureof a JOIN operation. The results can vary in a big way, so you wouldn't want your procedure to be locked into an execution plan that might be completely inappropriate for that JOIN. In a highlyspecialized case like this, you might want to force SQL Server to recompile the procedure every time the procedure runs. Doing so comes at a performance cost, but this might be offset by thesavings you gain in not executing the procedure with an awful compiled execution plan. Consider carefully whether to use this approach (or whether to re-engineer the over-design of yourapplication to avoid this situation in the first place). Should you need to instruct SQL Server to recompile each time, add the WITH RECOMPILE directive to the procedure, like this: CREATE PROCEDURE ProcName @Param int /* ... other parameters */ WITH RECOMPILE AS /* ... procedure code follows */
If we omit "WITH RECOMPILE", what will be the consequence? Thanks