I have a stored procedure which generates the next sequence number...
it uses SERIALIZABLE Option. procs look something like below..
begin
SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL SERIALIZABLE
BEGIN TRANSACTION
Sequence generating statement...
COMMIT TRANSACTION
set @NextSequenceValue = @NextSequenceValue
Return @NextSequenceValue
end
For some reason when i call the proc with below parameters to get next sequence number.. its hungs up..
declare @NextSequenceValue int
set @NextSequenceValue = 0
exec spGetNextSequence 19, 'LotSequence', @NextSequenceValue output, Null
select @NextSequenceValue as NextSequenceValue
When i queried sp_who2 it shows that my processid is blocked by some other processid.. and when i do DBCC INPUTBUFFER (blockingprocessid), the query of blocking processid and my nextsequence generation stored proc is not realted at all..
Can you help shed some light on why my nextsequence generating proc is getting hunged...?
Hi all, can anyone give me more information on set transaction isolation level serializable ?? I want to prove some lock to use on online insert and update. Thank you every much.
Hi,I have a problem using serializable transactions. In one transaction Iselect a single specific row from a table using a where clause (thiscauses it to acquire and hold a range lock). In another transaction Iattempt to insert a new row into the table (which does not match thefirst transactions where clause), but it is blocked by the firsttransaction. The reading I have done on SQL Server suggests that Ishould be able to insert rows, as long as the new rows do not match thewhere clause in the other transactions select.Here is what I do:Transaction 1SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL SerializableBEGIN TRANSACTIONselect * from test_table where id=1;and then on another session I runTransaction 2SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL SerializableBEGIN TRANSACTIONinsert into test_table values (2, 'two');Transaction 2 cannot complete until transaction 1 has finished. I havetried using WITH (ROWLOCK) hints but to no avail. Am I missingsomething important? Is this true of other DBs?(I am able to update rows that are not in transaction 1's where clause)I am using SQL Server version 8.00.760(SP3).Thanks for your help,Magnus.
I have an insert trigger which has to insert new records into 2 other databases. The first thing it has to do is get a maxid from a table in each of the databases before the insert. i was going to use a SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL SERIALIZABLE statment before getting the ID and then do my insert. My question is two-fold, first is this the best way to do it. And since I have 2 separate selects to get the 2 maxids in the other 2 databases and tables, do I need 2 of these statements inside the trigger, before each insert, or a separate one for each select? Thanks
Hi,Version Info: SQLSERVER 2000 SP3I am trying to understand how SQL Server works with SERIALIZABLE read.I am fairly new to SQL Server, having mainly worked with Informix.We are getting lock timeout error in our application. Our lock timeoutis set to 20 seconds. I am trying to investigate why locks are held forsuch a long time in the first place.I believe SQLServer tries to put keylocks as much as possible forensuring serializibility. For e.g.SELECT column_bfrom table_awhere column_c between 1000 and 1100what if column_c has no index. Does it switch over the data row.And what if a table has no index. Will it go for table lock, as ituse to do in earlier versions.TIA.--email id is bogus
I'm encountering a problem that seems to be due to the StreamError class not being serializable. This was raised on the JDBC Driver Team blog by Jonas on 10/24/2007. Jimmy Wu notes on 10/29/2007 that it is under investigation. Any progress?
I'm getting this when executing the code below. Going from W2K/SQL2k SP4 to XP/SQL2k SP4 over a dial-up link.
If I take away the begin tran and commit it works, but of course, if one statement fails I want a rollback. I'm executing this from a Delphi app, but I get the same from Qry Analyser.
I've tried both with and without the Set XACT . . ., and also tried with Set Implicit_Transactions off.
set XACT_ABORT ON Begin distributed Tran update OPENDATASOURCE('SQLOLEDB','Data Source=10.10.10.171;User ID=*****;Password=****').TRANSFERSTN.TSADMIN.TRANSACTIONMAIN set REPFLAG = 0 where REPFLAG = 1 update TSADMIN.TRANSACTIONMAIN set REPFLAG = 0 where REPFLAG = 1 and DONE = 1 update OPENDATASOURCE('SQLOLEDB','Data Source=10.10.10.171;User ID=*****;Password=****').TRANSFERSTN.TSADMIN.WBENTRY set REPFLAG = 0 where REPFLAG = 1 update TSADMIN.WBENTRY set REPFLAG = 0 where REPFLAG = 1 update OPENDATASOURCE('SQLOLEDB','Data Source=10.10.10.171;User ID=*****;Password=****').TRANSFERSTN.TSADMIN.FIXED set REPFLAG = 0 where REPFLAG = 1 update TSADMIN.FIXED set REPFLAG = 0 where REPFLAG = 1 update OPENDATASOURCE('SQLOLEDB','Data Source=10.10.10.171;User ID=*****;Password=****').TRANSFERSTN.TSADMIN.ALTCHARGE set REPFLAG = 0 where REPFLAG = 1 update TSADMIN.ALTCHARGE set REPFLAG = 0 where REPFLAG = 1 update OPENDATASOURCE('SQLOLEDB','Data Source=10.10.10.171;User ID=*****;Password=****').TRANSFERSTN.TSADMIN.TSAUDIT set REPFLAG = 0 where REPFLAG = 1 update TSADMIN.TSAUDIT set REPFLAG = 0 where REPFLAG = 1 COMMIT TRAN
It's got me stumped, so any ideas gratefully received.Thx
I have a design a SSIS Package for ETL Process. In my package i have to read the data from the tables and then insert into the another table of same structure.
for reading the data i have write the Dynamic TSQL based on some condition and based on that it is using 25 different function to populate the data into different 25 column. Tsql returning correct data and is working fine in Enterprise manager. But in my SSIS package it show me time out ERROR.
I have increase and decrease the time to catch the error but it is still there i have tried to set 0 for commandout Properties.
if i'm using the 0 for commandtime out then i'm getting the Distributed transaction completed. Either enlist this session in a new transaction or the NULL transaction.
and
Failed to open a fastload rowset for "[dbo].[P@@#$%$%%%]". Check that the object exists in the database.
I am getting this error :Distributed transaction completed. Either enlist this session in a new transaction or the NULL transaction. Description: An unhandled exception occurred during the execution of the current web request. Please review the stack trace for more information about the error and where it originated in the code. Exception Details: System.Data.OleDb.OleDbException: Distributed transaction completed. Either enlist this session in a new transaction or the NULL transaction.have anybody idea?!
i have a sequence container in my my sequence container i have a script task for drop the existing tables. This seq. container connected to another seq. container. all these are in for each loop container when i run the package it's work fine for 1st looop but it gives me error for second execution.
Message is like this:
Distributed transaction completed. Either enlist this session in a new transaction or the NULL transaction.
i am getting this error "Distributed transaction completed. Either enlist this session in a new transaction or the NULL transaction.".
my transations have been done using LINKED SERVER. when i manually call the store procedure from Server 1 it works but when i call it through Service broker it dosen't work and gives me this error.
We are using SQL server 6.5 and currently have about 100 users connections at a given point in time. The application is Visual Basic 5.0 based and it allows users to create MS Word documents from the application. These documents names are stored in a table which basically acts as a reference table. Every time a document needs to be attached to a record this table is called with an insert/update query. This results in an exclusive page/table lock and ends up into a blocked process. This finally results into a major halt for all the system users.
Manual killing of these blocked processes frees up the resources and brings things back to normal although disruptive to the users.
Any clue as to why the blocked processes are not able to free themsevles up ? Are we missing something in our SQL configuration that will help us with unblocking these processes ?
I get the error message below. Books online doesn't say any more. Can anyone explain? I am the only user connected to the db at the time, no jobs are executing.
Cannot shrink log file 2 (log) because all logical log files are in use.
(1 row(s) affected)
DBCC execution completed. If DBCC printed error messages, contact your system administrator.
I'm running a heavy SELECT query using WITH (NOLOCK). This still causes other processes trying to INSERT in one of the tables to get blocked. I thought the locking hint would prevent from blocking other processes?
I am getting the following error message when I tried installing the 2005 Developer Edition from the MSDN kit. I previously installed the 2005 Express Edition, and it worked just fine, so I thought that the install failed as it was at a lower version than the Express Edition. I uninstalled the SQLExpress Edition, however, when I try to install SQL Server 2005 again, I get the following message:
Name: Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Tools
Reason: Your upgrade is blocked. For more information about upgrade support, see the "Version and Edition Upgrades" and "Hardware and Software Requirements" topics in SQL Server 2005 Setup Help or SQL Server 2005 Books Online.
Build version check:
Your upgrade is blocked because the existing component is a later version than the version you are trying to upgrade to. To modify an existing SQL Server component, go to Add or Remove Programs in Control Panel, select the component you would like to modify, and then click Change/Remove.
Name: Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Tools
Reason: Your upgrade is blocked. For more information about upgrade support, see the "Version and Edition Upgrades" and "Hardware and Software Requirements" topics in SQL Server 2005 Setup Help or SQL Server 2005 Books Online.
Build version check:
Your upgrade is blocked because the existing component is a later version than the version you are trying to upgrade to. To modify an existing SQL Server component, go to Add or Remove Programs in Control Panel, select the component you would like to modify, and then click Change/Remove.
I have also installed Visual Studio NET, and I wonder if some component in the Studio app is holding back the SQL Server install. I have uninstalled all SQL components several times already, and I keep on getting this message.
I have an SQL Server 2005 mirroring config with "High availability". Twice over the past four weeks, the principal server started logging to the event log:
"All schedulers on Node 0 appear deadlocked due to a large number of worker threads waiting on DBMIRROR_DBM_EVENT" I checked the database activity monitor and indeed there were lots of processes in DBMIRROR_DBM_EVENT.
The database was totally unresponsive to queries (all got timeouts), and no failover was done.
This are the log entries for all day:
05/04/2008 08:40:44,Server,Unknown,All schedulers on Node 0 appear deadlocked due to a large number of worker threads waiting on DBMIRROR_DBM_EVENT. Process Utilization 0%. 05/04/2008 08:39:44,Server,Unknown,All schedulers on Node 0 appear deadlocked due to a large number of worker threads waiting on DBMIRROR_DBM_EVENT. Process Utilization 0%. 05/04/2008 08:38:44,Server,Unknown,All schedulers on Node 0 appear deadlocked due to a large number of worker threads waiting on DBMIRROR_DBM_EVENT. Process Utilization 0%. 05/04/2008 08:37:44,Server,Unknown,All schedulers on Node 0 appear deadlocked due to a large number of worker threads waiting on DBMIRROR_DBM_EVENT. Process Utilization 0%. 05/04/2008 08:36:44,Server,Unknown,All schedulers on Node 0 appear deadlocked due to a large number of worker threads waiting on DBMIRROR_DBM_EVENT. Process Utilization 0%. 05/04/2008 08:35:44,Server,Unknown,All schedulers on Node 0 appear deadlocked due to a large number of worker threads waiting on DBMIRROR_DBM_EVENT. Process Utilization 0%. 05/04/2008 08:33:49,Server,Unknown,The time stamp counter of CPU on scheduler id 2 is not synchronized with other CPUs. 05/04/2008 03:24:02,Backup,Unknown,Log was backed up. Database: TeleCable<c/> creation date(time): 2007/08/24(13:38:00)<c/> first LSN: 205089:18926:1<c/> last LSN: 209688:18463:1<c/> number of dump devices: 1<c/> device information: (FILE=1<c/> TYPE=DISK: {'\face01f$logbackup'}). This is an informational message only. No user action is required. 05/04/2008 00:00:14,spid24s,Unknown,This instance of SQL Server has been using a process ID of 1700 since 4/9/2008 3:18:54 AM (local) 4/9/2008 1:18:54 AM (UTC). This is an informational message only; no user action is required.
After that, the same entry once per minute.
I restarted the database and everything came to normal.
As you can imagine, the problem is really serious.
Should I forget about mirroring? Anyone has experienced something similar?
If I kill a blocked process, why does the current activity window still show the process? Both processes, blocking and blocked, are scheduled tasks. Also, the blocked process is still listed as a running task in the manage scheduled task window.
HiShortly, I keep invoices in a table.Occasionally, someone will fire the execution of a stored procedure(SP) that performs several UPDATEs against (potentially) all invoicesOLDER than a date that is supplied to the SP as a parameter.The SP is usually a lengthy process (it takes at least 30 mins).The problem is that SQL server 2000 Dev Edition doesn't allow me toinsert new invoices that are "younger", while the SP is executing.How should I specify to SQL Server that new invoices are "harmless"?Thanks.
I have written a stored procedure to list out all tables in whichrows or the table itself is locked. The only information I amnot able to get is the time when the lock occurred. The way Iwant is that if I run the procedure it should show all lockson a table which are at least 5 or x seconds old. This way I canavoid momentary locks on a table which go away after few seconds.Which table and column of master database has that information?Thanks.--email id is bogus
we have a database here and something happened which causes a database block. We tried to run the 'sp_who' 'active' command to see the spid which locked the database, and we found out that some transaction is blocking another transaction. The following is the sample data results from the sp_who 'active'
On one of my SQL servers (SQL 2000 SP4) i have a problem with spid blocked by itself (spid 54 (Blocked by 54)).
On the server it's running a verry simple UPDATE statement (from the Query Analizer)'. The query needs very long time to finalize (on SP3 it was very fast). I searched some forums regarding this issue and i found that maybe the SP4 can cause this problem.
I'm getting the following error when I try to run SQL05 SP2 on my server. When I get to the Authentication screen, I select Windows Authentication and check the box to use for all services. I am logged in using my personal admin account. I click the 'Test' button. Connection to Database Services, instance name 'MSSQLSERVER' is successful. However, connection to Reporting Services, instance name 'myserverSSRS' fails. The error message is: "Login failed: HResult 0x2, Level 16, State 1, Named pipes provider: Could not open a connection to SQL Server[2]. Sqlcmd: Error: Microsoft SQL Native Client: An error has occurred while establishing a connection to the server. When connecting to SQL Server."
I've had problems getting Reporting Services to work. Is this message a result of SSRS not being set up properly? How can I correct this?
I have an SSIS package that is basic in nature. It imports a flat file and makes some inserts to tables via OLE destination and also updates some tables via stored procedure calls using params. Sometimes the process "locks" and never finishes. When it locks it gets locked by process "-2" or a value that is not an actual process. What does this mean? What is -2?
Message: Generating user instances in SQL Server is disabled. Use sp_configure 'user instances enabled' to generate user instances.
I am using VB2005 Express. I had, evidently, a simpler version of SQL but deleted it, as was recommended, and then downloaded SQL 2005 Express. Now when trying to open an SQL database in a project I get that Information Message.
FURTHERMORE after loading the new SQL it wiped out all of my projects in VB 2005. The back up files were wiped out also.
we have tables that load overnight. Sometimes a user will try to run a query up against that table while the table is loading and a deadlock occurs. I do not notice this until I get into the office. By this time many tables have not loaded. Is there a way to have SQL6.5 automatically Kill deadlock processes.
We just installed SQL service pack 4. I am now finding that when doing a sp_who2 active, there are a lot of connections that are blocked by itself. The common factor is they all have a status of 'sleeping'. The strange thing is that even though it shows the connection is blocked, it is in fact not and will still return results. Below is a snapshot of a portion of what the sp_who2 active returns:
SPID Status Login HostName BlkBy DBName 53 sleeping sa TRACKER 53 dbABC 58 sleeping sa TRACKER 58 dbCDE 64 sleeping sa TRACKER 64 dbSTA 66 RUNNABLE User12 PC24 . master 70 sleeping User5 ANALYSIS 70 dbBML 74 sleeping sa TRACKER 74 dbCDE 76 sleeping sa TRACKER 76 dbPTS 83 sleeping User5 ANALYSIS 83 dbANA 86 DORMANT User11 CPTDB . NULL
Has anyone seen this? Is it related to the installation of service pack 4? (We have installed the services pack on many other SQL servers, but have not come accross this before.
