Hi,
I want to insert a record in a table having an identity column as primary key. I want to lock the table while inserting. so that no one should be able to insert, select, update, delete from the table. and once my insert is over, then will release the lock.
Can I have the code for the same. M using SQL SERVER 2005.
Thanks,
Rahul Jha
I have two tables for insertion in one transaction scope. Table one have 10 rows. After first table insert statement (not yet committed) if I run select on first table from other session, it holds table until my insert is committed or rolled back and from (SSMS), it display 10 rows and then wait for transaction scope till finished. My question is do I need to use no lock hint in this situation. Or there is something wrong with isolation level. One saying that in this situation table should not hols select while insert is in transaction scope.
View 5 Replies View Related
Hi,
I have implemented Remus Resanu's implementation from the Recycling Conversations article and I am experiencing locking issue when I try to insert new conversation handles to the SessionConversations table. I have copied the code in the article exactly including the activation procedure. Any ideas why I may be locking. I am thinking it is related to the HOLDLOCK hint on the table.
The sepcific line where I see locking is directly from the article:
INSERT INTO [SessionConversations] (SPID, FromService, ToService, OnContract, Handle) VALUES (...etc)
Thanks
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.
Does anyone know how to stop SQL server from applying exclusive table locks on mass Insert statements. I need to allow concurrent inserts into the same table using INSERT ... SELECT * FROM ...
SQL Server applies exclusive table locks that prevent this. I've tried setting LE as high as it goes but with no success. Microsoft suggest using single row inserts but this will be far too slow!
Any help would be much appreciated.
Jim Plant
Does anyone know how to stop SQL server from applying exclusive table locks on mass Insert statements. I need to allow concurrent inserts into the same table using INSERT ... SELECT * FROM ...
SQL Server applies exclusive table locks that prevent this. I've tried setting LE as high as it goes but with no success. Microsoft suggest using single row inserts but this will be far too slow!
Any help would be much appreciated.
Jim Plant
I am trying to insert data using the select * command from one table into another, but query analyzer just seems to run and run (over one hour before I stopped it). The current activity shows a huge number of extent locks. The table itself has approx 90,000 rows. What is causing this insert not to finish, and how do I sort it?
I am a little confused over LE thresholds etc. At present the server has the following settings:
LE threshold max - 10000
LE threshold min - 20
LE threshold % - 0
locks - 60000
Will changing these values help??
Derek
There are 2 tables which need to have data inserted into them for auditing purposes. The number of inserts per minute seems be at least 50-100. How to reduce locks during inserts.
There are 2 tables
Table1
ID - Surrogate Key/identity Column
SomeColumn1
SomeColumn2
SomeColumn3
SomeColumn4_timestamp
clustered index on ID column
Table2
ID Column ..... there's a call to get id from SCOPE_IDENTITY()
SomeColumn1
SomeColumn2
clustered index on ID column
NC idx on SomeColum1
NC idx on SomeColum2
A Sproc has the following code:
I changed the names to protect the innocent
CREATE PROCEDURE [dbo].[logging_sp]
@Audit BIGINT,
@varT1_1 NVARCHAR (50),
@varT1_2 NVARCHAR (64),
@varT1_3 INT,
@VarTime DATETIME,
@varT2_1 NVARCHAR (50),
@varT2_2 NVARCHAR (1024),
[code]....
I have an SSIS package doing a bulk insert from a file. Then later on I'm trying to delete that file (in a file delete task), but I'm getting an error:[File System Task] Error: An error occurred with the following error message: "The process cannot access the file 'xyz' because it is being used by another process.".I'm wondering if there isn't some way to 'tweak' the bulk insert syntax so that it doesn't lock the file?
View 5 Replies View RelatedGurus,
I am trying to execute this stored procedure when I try to change all occurences of a field in a table.
(
@Dept char(8),
@DDept char(8)
)
As
Set NoCOUNt On
Begin
Select '@DDept'
update phodept set fo_dept = @Ddept
where fo_dept = @Dept
update phone set fo_dept = @Ddept where fo_dept = @Dept
End
GO
The table/database is being used by others, generally in a read only mode.
via a VB 5.0 FE program.
The Stored procedure, when it is invoked, just hangs like it is waiting for exclusive use of the table.
Is there a way around it, without doing major surgery on the VB code?
Thanks.
Sam
Hello,
I am working on the implementation of a database for my company and I have
a simple (I hope) question to ask.
I have the following stored procedure that will be running when I want
(actually when I want to delete a customer).
Do not mind if you do not understand what this procedure does... ;-)
Actually the Level8View is a VIEW of a nested table
(CustomerData->CustomerData).
CREATE Procedure DeleteCustomer
@ClientID INT
AS
UPDATE Level8View
SET UpCode = Level2, Level1=Level2, Level2=Level3, Level3=Level4, Level4=Level5, Level5=Level6, Level6=Level7, Level7=Level8
WHERE Level1=@ClientID
UPDATE Level8View
SET Level2=Level3, Level3=Level4, Level4=Level5, Level5=Level6, Level6=Level7, Level7=Level8
WHERE Level2=@ClientID
UPDATE Level8View
SET Level3=Level4, Level4=Level5, Level5=Level6, Level6=Level7, Level7=Level8
WHERE Level3=@ClientID
UPDATE Level8View
SET Level4=Level5, Level5=Level6, Level6=Level7, Level7=Level8
WHERE Level4=@ClientID
UPDATE Level8View
SET Level5=Level6, Level6=Level7, Level7=Level8
WHERE Level5=@ClientID
UPDATE Level8View
SET Level6=Level7, Level7=Level8
WHERE Level6=@ClientID
UPDATE Level8View
SET Level7=Level8
WHERE Level7=@ClientID
DELETE FROM Customers
WHERE ClientID=@ClientID
GO
I checked this procedure and works perfectly.
What I want to do is to somehow lock the WHOLE TABLE (CustomerData) or the
view (Level8View) before the Update statements and unlock it after the
delete statements.
I do not want to do a Row by Row lock, or Page by Page lock since the updates
in this table occur in the whole table and during that operation I do not
want other threads to issue SELECT, INSERT or UPDATE statements.
Can someone answer me how I can lock and unlock the whole view or table
please?
I will appreciate it for your answer. Thanks.
Yours, sincerely
Efthymios Kalyviotis
ekalyviotis@comerclub.gr
I have a SP for an e-commerce site that creates an order doing the following fashion:
begin
-Fill out some variables
*Critical Section
-Create Order number
-While loop select on order table and recreate if ordernumber already exists
-Insert into order table
*End Critical Section
-Insert into order lines table, address table, etc.
commit
The problem is the Create Order number and While loop used to be at the top and occasionally I would get duplicate order numbers if two submitted at the same time. I rearranged it to the above and it happens less now.
My question is if there is a way to put an XLOCK on the orders table only during the critical section lines. Also my understanding is that once the insert into orders is done that the server will hold a lock until the commit in case of rollback.? I don't want to XLOCK the whole SP if I don't have to. It is quick though.
Thanks
I need 2 unique sequential numbers to be stored in the same table. Obviously, for the first number I can use an auto-number field. For the second number, I would like to use a 2nd table with just 1 field that would only ever store 1 record. The idea being that if a user needs to generate a new unique number, they lock the 2nd table, lookup the current value, store the value in a variable for use, add 1 to the value of the number in the table, then unlock the table.
Presumably, I'd use something like this:
SELECT OrderNo
FROM tblUniqueOrderNumber (WITH TABLOCK)
Does this lock the table so no other users can read/write the table? If so, how do I unlock the table once I've updated OrderNo? What happens if another user then reads the table while it has a TABLOCK applied? I'm using SQL Server 2005 and the database is a multi-user database. I have a feeling I'm not going about this the best way possible, but I'd like to know how the table lock works eitherway.
hi
can i lock my table while doing an updation so that all others in n/w can insert into the table only after my operation is completed?
if a user attempts to save/update the 'locked'table, will he get an error message or will his application (using ADO) will wait till the table gets unlocked?
Can any one please tell me how to lock & unlock a table a from inside a store procedure using T-SQL
thanks
hi,
I am running a sql job that select data from one database (multiple table) and inserts into another database (1 table)
I have a problem with the way it is locking the tables I am selecting from !
my query is like :
insert into testdb.dbo.tabletest
select * from
livedb.dbo.tablex
inner join liveb.dbo.table1 on tablex.id=table1.xid
It seems to be locking the table and blocking other users from accessing the table.
suppose my question is why is the select locking the table ?
I want to insert values into a table and the same time select a valuefrom the same table.I insert a record of a parent type and use a function to create asubscriberType for the record.Next i insert a record of child type and want to select thesubscriberType from the parent record.This do not work when i useINSERT TABLESELECT ,Name,"function to generate subscribertype",.............I DO NOT WANT TO USE CURSOR!!
View 1 Replies View RelatedWe have a MS SQL database with an Oracle linked server 'ALTTEST'
We can Select, Insert, Delete and Update tables on the Oracle Db using OpenQuery, but how do I apply a table lock with a transaction?
I've tried applying the code below, but it doesn't work.
Any help appreciated.
BEGIN TRAN
SELECT * from openquery(ALTTEST,'select LAST_PIN_NUMBER from sys_params') WITH (TABLOCKX)
COMMIT
So randomly every 1 to 6 days queries start timing out and I'm almost positive it's from an improperly terminated transaction
Is there a way to snoop this out the next time it happens? Like when a table's locked I can look and see yea this is the transaction it's in the middle of?
Hi,
im developing an application for my university final year project and i want to lock the table before the query executes to ensure that no other changes are allowed (sorry if im confusing)
So my question , really does anyone know how to do this and is it possible ?, for example in coldfusion a query is surrounded with cflock or something similiar.
Appreciate any and all help guys
Many thanks in advance
andy
Hi
Is a TABLOCK HOLDLOCK in a transaction the best way for locking a table for a brief period of time?
We need to get generate a unique serial number each time a certificate record is printed. We have in place a field called Field_SERIAL_NUMBER for each certificate record, which may be printed 1 time or 100 times. Each time it prints, we will insert a unique number into the Field_SERIAL_NUMBER field.
This is what I'm thinking to approach this.
- Create a new table called Table_SERIAL with one field called Field_NUMBER which has only 1 record set to 1.
- Every time a certificate is printed, we
1. Begin transaction
2. Select @number = Field_NUMBER from Table_SERIAL with a TABLOCK HOLDLOCK
3. Insert that number into the Field_SERIAL_NUMBER field in the certificate table
4. Increment @number by 1
5. Update Field_NUMBER with @number in Table_SERIAL
6. Unlock table
So, everytime the Field_NUMBER is pulled, it should be unique and incremented by 1.
Does this approach sound good?
Joyce
4. Increment
Hi,
is there anyway i can run delete statements on an audit table that will not lock the whole table?
As it is an audit table, when i run the delete query, the whole application freezes until the delete query is complete.
the process is taking several minutes as the table is approx 40M rows, the where clause in the delete is indexed but thats it really.
any thoughts greatly appreciated by my system users!
Hi All,I am using a SQLTransaction to insert records into a table. At onetime, there are 5000 or more records to be inserted one by one. Ittakes some 20-25 mins for the entire process to run.Another application accesses the same table.As long as the insert process within the transaction isn't completed,the second application is not getting any response from the server. Ieven tried to run a SELECT on the table in SQL Query Analyzer while theinsert process was running and it also did not respond till the timethe insert process finished!Is this normal that a transaction is locking up a table? How do Iovercome it? I am using IsolationLevel.ReadUncommitted for thetransaction.If I do not run the process within a SQLTransaction, the second processor running the SELECT in Query Analyzer does not hang.Thanks,Sanjeev Mahajan
View 3 Replies View RelatedSQL Server 2000, MSDE 2000I have a procedure in my application that I would like only one user at atime to be able to run. Is there a TSQL command I can run that willesentially lock a set of tables so others cannot access the table until theuser is done with the procedure or until the user disconnects from thatsession (in case of a hung app, I would like to lock released)TIA--Tim Morrison--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Vehicle Web Studio - The easiest way to create and maintain your vehiclerelated website.http://www.vehiclewebstudio.com
View 3 Replies View RelatedI feel like I read about a new ability in SSRS 2005 to be able to lock the position of a table's header row (when viewing through the report viewer) so that it does not scroll out of view when scrolling down long report. Now that I need it, I have not been able to find any information about it. Does anyone have any information about this feature or know if this feature exists?
View 1 Replies View RelatedHi,
I have the following doubt about table lockinglocking in case of partitioning:-
Say we have 5 partition on the table Employee on the key Joining_Date and when we run 5 select queries on each of the parition in parallel will there be locking on the table when the 1st query is running or all the 5 queries can run in parallel. Basically, I am trying to see if parallelism and partitioning can work in sync or there will be locking at the table level if I don't specify any query hints?
Any help in this regard is highly appreciated.
Thanks,
Ritesh
We have a nightly script that drops and rebuilds a table. Problem is before the script has had a chance to complete the building of the primary key, it fails due to some other process gaining access to the table.
My question is this: how do I lock a table for the duration of the transaction.
Here is what I think would work:
SET ISOLATION LEVEL SERIALIZABLE
BEGIN TRANSACTION
DROP TABLE <table>...
CREATE TABLE <table>...
INSERT INTO <table> WITH (TABLOCKX) ...
ALTER TABLE <table> ADD CONSTRAINT PRIMARY KEY ...
COMMIT
Any insight as to whether or not I am correct, or if I am not, what would be the correct way.
We currently have a large ETL import each night. There are lots of tables and some are quite large. If there is a problem with the nightly import, it is rerun during the day while users are running reports. The only updates to the tables is the nightly import.Currently the import does a BULK Insert and several INSERT INTOs. We are going to try to improve performance by adding a WITH (TABLOCK). But wonder if the TABLOCK will cause more locking, less locking, or be about the same. We do not have transactions batched. We insert all the records for a table in a single transaction.
Have found these references regarding TABLOCK, but I am confused what they mean, and how they differ from doing a BULK INSERT or INSERT INTO without TABLOCK.
TABLOCK - Specifies that a shared lock is taken on the table held until the end-of-statement. [URL] ....
Using INSERT INTO…SELECT to Bulk Load Data with Minimal Logging [URL] ....
Lock Modes [URL] ....
Hi all,
We have an SSIS package which runs for around 30 min and it does a lot of things, now whenever this SSIS Package is run it is suspected that it is locing the table or records from the DB which it is reading the records, and indeed that system is having some fault that it is never able to remove that lock unless the DB restarts. In this source we only have a SQL Command and not a Table selected. Have anyone come across this problem? Any answers will be of great help.
Hi all,
We have a scenario where we want to lock and unlock manually some rows in a table in SQL CE database .First the rows we need should be locked. By using a select query the locked rows will be read and processed in front end. Only if the process is completed in front end, manually I need to unlock rows which I have locked earlier. When rows are in locked state no body should be allowed to access that rows . ( should not allow anybody even to put a select query on that locked rows).
At the same time appending rows in the table should always be allowed.
Is it possible to achieve the above scenario?
Hi all,
We have a scenario where we want to lock and unlock manually some rows in a table in SQL CE database .First the rows we need should be locked. By using a select query the locked rows will be read and processed in front end. Only if the process is completed in front end, manually I need to unlock rows which I have locked earlier. When rows are in locked state no body should be allowed to access that rows . ( should not allow anybody even to put a select query on that locked rows).
At the same time appending rows in the table should always be allowed.
Is it possible to achieve the above scenario?
I am quite new to MS SQL, and I want to read rows from a todo table, andwhen a row has been processed, I want to delete that row.Ages ago in MySQL I would probably have locked the table, select, processa row, delete a row, unlock the table.I have been reading through the documentation from MS SQL, but it's notclear what exactly I should do.Since I want to lock only one table in the select (the others just providedata, and are not modified), what's a good solution?--John MexIT: http://johnbokma.com/mexit/personal page: http://johnbokma.com/Experienced programmer available: http://castleamber.com/Happy Customers: http://castleamber.com/testimonials.html
View 2 Replies View RelatedHi guys,
I have a question regarding a locking scheme in MSSQL I hope you guys can help. In Sybase, I am able to specify datarow locking in DDL (ex. create table, alter table). Can I do the same in MSSQL or is there an equivalent option in CREATE TABLE statement in MSSQL? I came across a few articles in MSDN about datarow locking and it seems to me that MSSQL only allows locking through DML... Is that true? Thanks.