Good day.
I have a same problem with tempdb syscolumns locking. I call a
procedure thats creates a temporary tables fill its and try to insert a results into a table
which have a trigger which try to create a temporary tables.
Sometimes this work fine, but sometimes the server is hangs up. The sp_who shows next:
spid status loginame hostname blk dbname cmd
------ ---------- ------------ ------------------------------------ ----- ---------- ------------------------------------------------
1 sleeping sa 0 master MIRROR HANDLER
2 sleeping sa 0 master LAZY WRITER
3 sleeping sa 13 tempdb DUMP TRANSACTION
4 sleeping sa 0 master RA MANAGER
13 sleeping sa PROG1 0 SHOPNEW INSERT
14 runnable sa PROG1 0 master SELECT
The sp_lock procedure shows next:
............................ (I cut a big list)
13 Ex_page-blk 3 316 tempdb
............................
After that I can't make anything with hempdb (use sp_who2 or sp_lock2 or any other) and
can't a KILL 13. I also can't stop a service SQLServer.exe I can OLNY restart the NT...
Note: I tried to use a begin tran ... end tran. No effects reached.
And I can't understand why the server hang's up when he want...
hi all,we have a SQL2000SP3 runing in W2K3. The application is JDEdwards.recently I've observed that once in a while (about a few hours), therewould be a process from the ERP application that holds quite a numberof extent locks in tempdb, can be as high as 10000 locks. when I runsp_lock on that spid, it gives something like this:697200EXT1:156760 XGRANT697200EXT1:94896 XGRANT697200EXT1:132224 XGRANT697200EXT1:140488 XGRANT697200EXT1:181552 XGRANT697800DB SGRANT697200EXT1:165280 XGRANT697200EXT1:127888 XGRANT697200EXT1:173544 XGRANT697200EXT1:152624 XGRANT697200EXT1:160888 XGRANT697200EXT1:144616 XGRANT697200EXT1:198336 XGRANT697200EXT1:107296 XGRANT697200EXT1:99176 XGRANT697200EXT1:169344 XGRANT697200EXT1:115704 XGRANTI am wondering what action is it doing, creating temp tables?? manythanks.
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.
"tempdb is skipped. You cannot run a query that requires tempdb"?
We're running a .Net web application with a SQL Server 2000 backend, and we get the error intermittently. Restarting the SQL Server service seems to fix it, as it causes tempdb to be rebuilt, but this isn't a long term solution. Any direction or hints would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! - Mike
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?
I Have 359 locks on MY Database ,They are always there on my DB.The DB is a development database and lots of summary Stored procedures will be running on this DB. Does it effect the performance.How can I remove those locks. Thanks.
Hi I want to write all my select ststements using locks how i should write a select ststement using locks i searched for examples but iam not getting the syntax Plz give me one example for select statements using locks
How to lock a Row in SQL2000 so that nobody can select that row. I applied ROWLOCK, but i am not finding the way. My query is "SELECT * FROM tablename WITH (ROWLOCK)" Is this the correct way to write locks. I would be thankful if u help me
There are 2 tables for transaction. The header and tail tables. How do I insert records. if one is updated & another is not ? the sequence for tracking the records will fail. How do I deadlock the table for insert especially when I use stored procedures for 'Inserts'.
I have just upgraded my sql 65 to sql 7. The problem I am running into is running out of locks all the time with 50000 locks. The sql box has 4 pentium pro 200 processors and 1 Gig of ram. Here is the error message:
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.
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..
I`m two weeks old with SQL 7 Beta 3 with no formal training whatsoever. I just kinda tinker with it at the moment since it`s installed in a stand alone server with me having sole access.
Using DTS (import into SQL), I tried to migrate an Inventory History dbf (Dbase 3) having 13+ million records. I got this error message after a few hours:
"Error at Destination for Row number 6353502. Errors encountered so far in this task: 1. SQL Server has run out of LOCKS. Rerun your statement where there are fewer active users, or ask the system administrator to reconfigure SQL Server with more locks."
It was the only application running on the server (aside from the SQL services) and i was the sole user. This is my first time on SQL Server and as DBA i should know everything `bout it.
Question is how and where do i reconfigure for more LOCKS? And how many LOCKS do i have to set?
I am using SQL Server 6.5, when two or more independent applications put transactions through SQL, it locks up. Example of locks up.
When the OrderLines table is locked, then I put the following (Select * from OrderLines) then the query does not return any values, the world goes round and round, the only way out is to shut down and cross my fingers whilst SQL goes into recovery mode.
I have read through some of the documentation, such as deadlocks, livelocks and lock starvation but it say none of these will lock the whole machine. But somehow simultaneous transactions can, and the current activity dialog goes red, bright red.
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.
I have a problem where Backup Exec crashed during a backup of a SQL database and now SQL show 3 extent lock that are now redundant. These cannot be removed from Enterprise manager Is it therefore possible to remove them directly from the master database ??
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 am attempting to delete some records in a table using msquery. Msquery locks up and I see that I have an intent lock on the table in enterprise manager that never seems to get an exclusive lock. What would inhibit an exclusive lock. USer connecting to the database at this time all seem to experience an ODBC error until I kill msquery. I can not kill the intent locks unless killing the msquery app.
I am having trouble with locks and performance issues in one application. The SQL server is specific to this application. What settings should i choose to set an alert to let me know when i get too many locks? the locks i am interested in ar ethe ones that show up in SQL EM. ie where a process is blocking another process(es).
I have tried New Alert | lock requests /sec but that is a huge figure when the server is running OK, so i cant guess what value to set for the counter. Is there a better object/counter i should use?
Hi Guys, I have written quite a big stored procedure which creates a temporary table (multi-session) and updates it. All the statements are encapsulated in a single transaction which is explicitly declared in the code. What happens is that a lock is being put by the server on that table (of type Sch-M) in order thus preventing any type of operations on it (including simple select)
Now, I want to be able read that table from within another transaction. Why is that I cannot use a table hint NOLOCK in the select statement?
Here is some code which reproduces my problem.
Query A:
SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL READ UNCOMMITTED;
BEGIN TRAN TR_DEMO;
CREATE TABLE ##TBL1( Oidx int not null primary key identity(1,1), Name nvarchar(30) not null, Type char(1) not null );
I understand the basic concept of page locks and table locks, but I am unclear of the exact details of the locks. Would someone please explain this to me?
User A goes into WORK_ORDER table record 1 User B goes into WORK_ORDER table record 2
records 1 and 2 are on the same page. Would user B would be able to access/modify the record even though user A already had a lock set? Or would that page be locked until user A`s lock was released?
What would happen if user A tried to access record 2 as well as record 1?
also,
What would happen if user B tried to access record 1 if user A was already in it?
