SQL Server 2008 :: Row Locks Not Escalating To Table Locks After 5000
Jul 16, 2015
I've got an INSERT that's selecting data from a linked server and attempting to push 10 million rows into the blank table. More or less, it looks like this:
The instance of the SQL Server Database Engine cannot obtain a LOCK resource at this time. Rerun your statement when there are fewer active users. Ask the database administrator to check the lock and memory configuration for this instance, or to check for long-running transactions. There are no other active users. I ran it again and monitored the following DMO to watch the growth of locks for that spid:
SELECT request_session_id, COUNT (*) num_locks
-- select *
FROM sys.dm_tran_locks
--where request_session_id = 77
GROUP BY request_session_id
ORDER BY count (*) DESC
The number of locks started small and held for a while around 4-7 locks, but at about 5 minutes in the number of locks held by that spid grew dramatically to more than 8 million before finally erroring again with the same message. Researching, I can't figure out why it's not escalating from row locks to table locks at the appropriate threshold. The threshold in was set to 0 at first (Server Properties > Advanced > Parallelism > Locks). I set it to 5000, and it still didn't seem to work. Rewriting the INSERT to include a WITH (TABLOCK) allows it to finish successfully in testing. My problem is that it's coming out of an ETL with source code that I can't edit. I need to figure out how to force it to escalate to locking the entire table via table or server level settings.
A colleague suggested that installing service packs may take care of it (the client is running SQL Server 2008 R2 (RTM)), but I haven't found anything online to support that theory.
We are migrating our database(s) from ORACLE to SQL. In Oracle we were able to issue a SELECT statement and see all of the locks (Blocking and Non-Blocking) currently in the system. The query also included the Process ID of the process we needed to kill in order to get rid of the lock.
We now need to create the same type of query for Microsoft SQL Server 2012. I have seen postings on different sites saying that this info can be obtained using SP_WHO2 or using the SQL Server Management Studio Activity Monitor's PROCESSES tab, but we are looking for a SELECT statement that will give us similar information.
I have a sql snippet from a 3rd party application that will not complete its transaction. The SELECT statement executes but does not finish. Instead the statement just sits in AWAITING COMMAND for 1000 seconds then dies, thus killing the UPDATE statement that is supposed to follow.
I am interested in getting a better handle on how SQL 2000 determines the locking level to apply to different transactions. I am familiar with the fact that SQL does this on the fly but I was wondering if this could be specified in a Stored Procedure to use one over the other instead and what impact if any that might have on indexes. The databases I work with run anywhere from under 100 GB to 150 GB. Thanks for anyone's input on this subject.
HiThere is an application that runs on sql server.The application selects/updates some few tables frequentlyOnce there is even a select on this table .It blocks other userssometimes for very long.Is there anything that can be done to reduce this?The table has 18000 rows and does not seem to have an indexI thought indexing might help but 18000 rows without an index isno reason for 30 minutes of lock time.I will appreciate your help as usualVince
Hi, I am trying to insert some records into a table within a transaction that is without commit/rollback.In other window/transaction i am trying to insert a record into the same table but it is hanging up.why?
I believe during the insert(with in a transaction) whole table is not locked.I should be able to insert records from other transactions.
Is it possible that an OLEDB Data Flow Source is imposing locks on the source tables? The source is an SQL Server OLTP environment, and although the package will be scheduled to run nightly when the application sees little to no use, I want to be sure that the process isn't impacting any application functions.
We have a web-based third-party application that has both background processes and user activity requests running in the same database (SQL Server 2005 SP2). The problem is that a background process will start a long-running transaction and hold an exclusive lock on a few rows in a given table (a small table, <100 rows). The web clients need to scan this same table, but when their "select *" statements get to those locked row(s), the web client queries stall waiting for that exclusive lock to be released. This effectively brings the entire web front end to a halt because all clients must hit this table for each user action. I realize that this is the classic lock condition that multiversioning databases like Oracle, PostgreSQL, SQL Server Compact Edition, and other databases do not suffer because they don't use shared read locks like SQL Server. But since we're on SQL Server for this app, what is the way to get around this problem? Modifying the clients to use WITH (NOLOCK) is not an option... there will be major consistency issues unless the clients run in Read Committed or higher. Any ideas? We could tweak this app if needed. Does SQL Server 2008 introduce multiversioning or at least some mechanism to get around this problem? I did not see it mentioned on the Microsoft site, but maybe I missed it. Thanks in advance.
I was under impression that rebuilding index online largely means that the index will remain available for use during rebuild and my procs and query will be able to use it during rebuild. Also my understanding was that table will be locked very briefly while the schema change will be completing.But when I was rebuilding the clustered index online on a large table with some 3 million records, the table got locked and I was not able even to read the data from it for some 5 minutes. Then I cancelled the operation as it was production server and it was one of our main transaction table.
Is rebuilding index online supposed to work this way? The table has no other index.The parameteres I used are:
REBUILD WITH (PAD_INDEX = ON, SORT_IN_TEMPDB = ON, ONLINE = ON, ALLOW_ROW_LOCKS = ON, ALLOW_PAGE_LOCKS = ON, FILLFACTOR = 95)
Hi,I have an Access application with linked tables via ODBC to MSSQLserver 2000.Having a weird problem, probably something i've done while not beingaware of (kinda newbie).the last 20 records (and growing)of a specific table are locked - cantchange them - ("another user is editing these records ... ").I know for a fact that no one is editing records and yet no user canedit these last records in the MDB - including the administrator -while able to add new records.Administrator able to edit records in the ADP (mssql server) where thetables are stored.Please help, the application is renedred inert .Thanks for reading,Oren.
Everytime I try to open the design-mode of a table from enterprise mgr, I get this error 1204.--- SQL Server has run out of LOCKS. Rerun your statement when there are fewer active users, or ask the system administrator to reconfigure SQL Server with more LOCKS. There no other users but me. Locks have been configured to their max (over 200000000). Don't understand whats wrong. Please help..
We've experienced persistent hang up on our application. I tried opening the enterprise manager->management->Current Activity->Locks/Object and I've seen ridiculous entries like master.dbo.spt_values, SIS.dbo.feesclass,tempdb.dbo$##lockinfo205. I don't what this mean? does it tell us that something wrong with the application that does not release locks? please help me.
I have a simple web application using ASP.NET/C#/SQL Server 2000/Windows 2000
I'm having problems with the server "hanging" for ~15 minutes. Disk/CPU are idle so this isn't a resource issue. In Enterprise Manager, under "Current Activity" I see several processes waiting on:
LCK_M_X LCK_M_S LCK_M_S NETWORKIO
How do I investigate this? My application is so simple, I have trouble imagining how a lock-related problem could ocurr? There is absolutely no concurrent processing done on this server. There is only one user running this app and there are no separate threads spawned.
Although this problem is sporadic, this happens the most while doing the following:
- Open connection1 (for SELECT) - Open connection2 (for UPDATE) - Open SqlDataReader through connection1 with SELECT statement - Iterate through - For certain records issue UPDATE statement via connection2.
Here are some sample code snippets. Default ADO.NET options and everything should be cleaned up through C# "using" blocks without relying on garbage collection.
using (SqlConnection selectConnection = LeadsDatabase.OpenConnection()) { using (SqlConnection updateConnection = LeadsDatabase.OpenConnection()) { using (SqlCommand dbCommand = new SqlCommand(sql, selectConnection)) { using (SqlDataReader reader = dbCommand.ExecuteReader()) { while (reader.Read()) { using (SqlCommand updateCommand = new SqlCommand(sql, updateConnection)) { updateCommand.ExecuteNonQuery();
Hi, i have installed sql 7.0 sp1 on a server that frecuently report the error: 1024
"SQL Server has run out of LOCKS. Rerun your statement when there are fewer active users, or ask the system administrator to reconfigure SQL Server with more LOCKS.."
I reconfiguered the locks twice, but the error persist.
Situation: When I ran a query and bumped into a message that is "SQL server has run out of LOCKS. Re-run your command when there are fewer active ussers. or ask your system administratroe to reconfigyre SQL Server with more LOCKS." Then, I tried to reconfigure/increase the locks. It could not let me do it. So, I tried to relog on the server, then I kept getting the same message as above.
Questions: Is there a way to log on the server and reconfigure the locks? Do I have reinstall the SQL server?
I am getting the following message from the SQL Server 7.0. I have increased the locks but still it is getting messages on few days.
Coould you please advise me what is the main reason for ran out of locks and how can solve this problem otherthan increase the locks.If needs to be increased what is the calculation method to arrive at the number of locks.
Thanks >RAvi
" SQL Server Alert System: 'Demo: Sev. 19 Errors' occurred on CSQWBDB1
DESCRIPTION:Error: 1204, Severity: 19, State: 1 SQL Server has run out of LOCKS. Rerun your statement when there are fewer active users, or ask the system administrator to reconfigure SQL Server with more LOCKS. "
I have to find locks which have been caused by some particular users before the scheduled jobs kick off and kill the locked processes so that the scheduled job executes without failing. How to do this in SQL server? please help
Hi All, I am frequently getting an error of Unable to acquire a LOCK at this time. Something about too many users logged in. What is the limit of LOCKS in MS SQL 2005 ? When I switch the cluster nodes, the LOCK issue goes away. The issue only occurs when someone tries a DDL command. Advice.
I have an application wrote in Power Builder 11 and use OLEDB connection for SQL SERVER 2005 DB. it works excellent till multiple users access the application. 2 seconds passes and locks appears and blocks all the DB! I realy don't know what is the reason. In past I used SQL Native driver and it works well with the same application!!! (other reasons caused me to change the connection. not this). Does someone can help me????????
I have a co-worker whose sql server 2005 is exhibiting strange behavior. We have already re-installed sql server 2005 and service packed it to SP2 to try and see if the behavior stops but it has not.
Every so often during the day sql server 2005 will start to slow down to the point that my co-worker's queries begin to time out. He turned on profiler to look at what was going on behind the scenes.
We see where sa is releasing and acquring locks to the tune of 180,000 rows in a fifteen minute span when this behavior starts so does his time outs. He has reporting options and analysis services installed but not configured. His only connection is to his local database. Occasionally, you see a number like - (03000d8f0ecc) appear in the Text Data column in profiler for sa. I read something about reporting options using sa for clean up but I don't think that is what is happening here.
Does someone have a clue as to what is happening and a way we can prevent the behavior? It is affecting his ability to work on his application.
I just ran into an issue with cascading locks due to a SPID on one of my production servers. When researching the lock, I noticed that there was no sql text. SP_Who 2, nor the following query captured anything,
I spoke to the user causing the lock and he ran into a visual basic error when this occurred and didn't close out that window. So my guess is that it's due to an uncommitted transaction. However, shouldn't I still see something if that was the case?
I have read that even during read procedures (sql select statements), sql server uses row locking. I know that you can use the NOLOCK keyword, but if you don't everytime that a user makes a selects statement on a table, does sql server really lock those rows, and if so are they then unavailable to another user who wants to make a select statement at the same time on that same table? That does not seem like it would be the case otherwise it would not scale well. Thanks for any clarification on this.
I am using SQL Server7.0. I opened a table through the Enterprise Manager and left it open. In the Query Analyzer when I try to update a field on that table(more than 2000 rows), it goes on running. When I watched the Current Activity, it shows that the update process is being blocked by the select query. But if I try to update the same column for less than 1500 rows, there is no blocking issue and the update occurs immediately. Can anybody let me know why this is happening and what should I do to prevent it?
To I got the following error message. Can some one tell how to solve this issue.
Server: Msg 1204, Level 19, State 1, Procedure OPEN_OBJECTS, Line 2 SQL Server has run out of LOCKS. Rerun your statement when there are fewer active users, or ask the system administrator to reconfigure SQL Server with more LOCKS.
Hi I have a big query which updates around 14000 rows at a time if i place a lock on the table and others try to update the same table is it possible to let them know that table is locked by someone else.
I have a stored proc which will be entering/updating a record into a table. The table's key is an integer field which I may have to increment by one. I know I can use
declare @nextid int set @netxid = max(id) from table insert @nextid into table Is some kind of lock the best way to approach this?
