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.
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.
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, 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.
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 RelatedI 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
HiIs it possible to force row level locking in one or more tables insome database. We have some problems when SQL Server decides to choosepage- or table-level locking.We are using SQL Server 2000.Best regardsAarno
View 1 Replies View RelatedHi 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:-
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
I want to perform column level and database level encryption/decryption....
Does any body have that code written in C# or VB.NET for AES-128, AES-192, AES-256 algorithms...
I have got code for single string... but i want to encrypt/decrypt columns and sometimes the whole database...
Can anybody help me out...
If you have Store procedure in SQL for the same then also it ll do...
Thanks in advance
Hi,
AM in need of SSRS 2005 design documents for a project purpose. Can somebody let me know where can i find these documents? Thanks in advance
I have a table X with 61390 rows on it. IT is a crucial table which is being read and updated constantly. If I create a clustered index on the Primary Key (identity column) and run UPDATE x SET c1 = 1234 where PKCOL = 4321 the best lock I can get is a table Lock. If I create a compound non-clustered index on C1 and PKCOL the best lock I can get is a Page Lock. PAge Lock is OK but as this table is in High demand I want a row lock so others can carry on referenceing other parts of the table. WHy does it take a page lock and not a Row lock?
View 1 Replies View RelatedHi,
We are becoming increasingly more involved with SQL Server 7.0 development.
Can someone show me a good example of ROW LOCKING with exclusive and share
modes?
If I am starting a transaction with a SELECT and later an UPDATE, what is
the best way to handle locking?
Thank you for any help on this issue.
Steve
is there a way of locking db on server. i am doing a overtime and pay system but there is a few members of IT staff that are very nosey and this is senstive information and i dont want them looking at the tables on the server can these be locked for only me to view
View 3 Replies View RelatedHello,
I'm trying to determine if a row in a table is locked. First, I issue a lock on some rows. Then, I query the syslockinfo table to see which rows are locked. It tells me which rows are locked, but it returns a hashed resource value that, I guess, is somehow related to the key. How can I un-hash the value? Or, how can I hash my own key so that I can compare it with the hashed value? I have tried using the HashBytes function, but I don't know what is actually being hashed when the row is locked.
For example:
begin transaction
select * from test with (rowlock, updlock)
select * from master..syslockinfo
where rsc_objid = (select id from sysobjects where name = 'test') and req_mode = 4
returns:
rsc_text = (010086470766); rsc_bin = 0x000708001374FC020100010086470766
Thanks.
Hi
I have a setting where two Web Servers access the same SQL Server database. To gaurantee consistent data writes and reads I need to lock part of the database in special conditions.
I know exactly when I need particular tables of the database to be locked, but I am in doubt of how to do it. Does SQL Server 2005 have any mechanism for providing locks gauranteed to free the lock if one of the web servers crash - or if SQL Server itself crashes?
/Bezbos
Currently I am working on asp.net Intranet system.I need some suggestion on records locking for Sqlserver & ASP.net.
I want to prevent two user to open the same record for modify.Means if some one has open one record (id=xxxxx) for modify then others should not be able to open same same record (id=xxxxx) for modify .otherwise if both user will open/update same record then information in database will not be updated correctly.
Any idea how we can do the record locking so that not two users can open same record(id=xxxxx) for modify.
Thanks in Advance
Arvind
Hi,
How can i handle record locking in sql server?
In the application I'm working on, I need to be able to use different locks on my records during certain transactions. I need to know how to do this programmatically from within VB.net. If someone can show me an example of how to do this or show me where I could find some, I'd appreciate that.
Thanks.
Hi All,According to my observation using SP_WHO2 in my database, some INSERTstatements are getting blocked by SELECT statements. Though theblockingSELECT statement is having ReadPast hint, i think, it will only readpastlocked resources but will not guarantee the select statement itself notblocking other statements(in my case Insert). According to my knowledgeandinformation, select statements take shared locks but why then thesestatements are blocking insert statements?Can there be any other solution other than using NoLock hint as thishintmake sure no shared locks are issued but it can read uncommited data.Need help urgently.ThanksRitesh
View 5 Replies View RelatedHow to avoid table locks during simultaneous addition, deletion and updates of 50,000 records or more. I am using SQL Server 2005 interfacing with Java.
Thanks,
Hi...
i hv a database (sql server 2000) where i got locking on many tables and my application was down.
I restarted the sql server and the application was fine but after five minutes the same locking issue started happening. I did a index rebuild the next time on all indexes and everything was fine.But i cannot relate how locking occured and why it was not after index rebuild.Can anyone shed some light on this or anyone had similar experience... cos i cannot figure out a way on this.
Thanks in advance
Hi pardon my ignorance but I wonder if someone could answer a few questions for me.
I am writing a program which will be used by perhaps upto 100 users at a time. The program sits on any number of PCs and loads user specific data to a given PC according to who has logged on to windows on that PC.
A number of data items loaded from the user table have to be unique as they are usernames for other systems that my program simplifies access to.
So when a user logs on to my program for the first time a row is created for them in the user table (indexed by a GUID and their unique network name). The other unique fields are left blank and the user is given an opportunity to fill these details in.
Before writing these details to the user's row in the 'users table' the program loads the whole user table down and checks that these items are unique before committing them to that user's row in the table.
The problem of course is that if between the program downloading the user table into a local datatable, checking the values are unique and then actually writing them someone else writes the same data into their row then 2 users end up with the same data - which shouldn't be allowed. i.e. 2 users can't have the same user name for the other software.
How can I solve this problem with locking? Once the user table is downloaded and in a locel datatable presumably the table is no longer locked so another user could write data to the table.
I acutally think this is going to be a pretty rare occourance but I still want to try to cover all eventualities.
I suspect the problem is the way my program is going about the checking.
Should I use an SQL insert statement like??
If exists(SELECT username from users where username=@username)
BEGIN
RAISEERROR("Username already exists")
END
ELSE
BEGIN
INSERT etc
If so I guess this will simplify my code. Is this the correct thing to do? And then just trap the errors that arise if a duplicate does arise?
Also some more general questions.
1)I presume 2 users simultaneously looking up data from 2 different rows in a table doesn't lock the table so one search fails? I use the code below having set up a command to run a stored procedure to search for a user by their network name.
Dim lclRowRet As SqlDataReader
lclRowRet = LoadUserCommand.ExecuteReader(CommandBehavior.SingleRow)
lclRowRet.Read()
2) I presume writing data to my user table a row at a time will also not cause a lock. I create a command object with all the row values in and then do a command.executenonquery()
As a rule I close all my connections as soon as I'm done with them.
Many thanks for your help in advance.
nik
I'm running a website on IIS 6.0 w. ASP.Net 2.0 and SQL Server Express 2005 via the native client. The connection string is fairly standard:
<add name="SiteSqlServer" connectionString="Data Source=.SQLEXPRESS;AttachDbFilename=c:DotNetNukeApp_DataASPNETDB.MDF;Integrated Security=True;User Instance=True" providerName="System.Data.SqlClient"/>
I find that after the website has been running for a while I can no longer open the database using SQL Server Management Studio Express (I get an error indicating that the physical file has been locked). Even if I shutdown and restart both IIS and SQL Server, it remains locked and can only be opened once I find and "End Process" all the sqlservr.exe instances from the Task Manager.
Is this a known issue? Any way to find out what is locking the database, or any specific configuration to check?
thanks
Steve
A fellow developer of mine has created a ASP.Net application that executes some fairly complex stored procedures. This application is for all intensive purposes a queue and 3 or 4 people work on processing items in a FIFO type environment. There is logic in the Stored procedures to make sure each worker get a unique entry using a series of query hints.
Well what we are seeing is if these works are moving at a rapid pace and we execute an sp_who2 on the sql server there are entries that that seems to be hanging there and REMAINING there even after a browser is closed or the disposed method has been called on the connection object. Has anyone else experienced something similar to this with an ASP.Net application used by mutiple people?
My inclination is to blame the design of the application, but before I do that and step on my co-workers toes I thought I would throw this out to the group.
Thanks in advance for your input.