db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Matrigali <mikem_...@sbcglobal.net>
Subject Re: conflict detection strategies
Date Thu, 16 Feb 2006 18:43:15 GMT

Dag H. Wanvik wrote:

> Hi,
> Mike> It is true that the current access methods don't reuse row locations
> Mike> until a table level lock is granted.  But your project would be the
> Mike> first dependency on this outside of the access method implementations
> Mike> themselves.  It is very clear the contract that the access methods
> Mike> have with their clients while locks are held on the data they are
> Mike> looking at, what you are proposing is a contract on unlocked data.
> So, is the right approach to always lock all rows seen as part of an
> updatable scrollable insensitive result set? Currently, this would
> seem the only way to know whether an update/delete of a row can safely
> be performed when navigating (back) to a previously seen row, since
> non-locked rows are legal prey for compress, and there is no way(?) to
> tell if a row on a page has changed its "identity" since the previous
> read.

Locking the rows definitely works, and follows the current support. I
look forward to your writeup on what kind of locking you do under the
various isolation levels for insensitive SUR.

> Some kind of notification from store before compress starts, as
> proposed by Andreas, would allow invalidation of the result set to
> take place, offering higher concurrency, at the price of a new
> contract between store and the access layer. It would solve
> rowlocation validity problem for both the "in-place" compress (which
> apparently can happen before the transaction commits) and the off-line
> compress (which is an issue when trying to realize holdability for
> insensitive scrollable updatable result sets).

I just think notification is the wrong approach, as the number of pieces
of code in the future that might have to deal with with the notify may
have to increase.  Controlling this seems like it should be in one
place, at the lowest level rather than having the upper levels talk.
Maybe having in place compress move rows under row locking was a bad
idea - it was the most online decision.

I would like to continue discussion of what is needed.  First I want to
understand what is needed in the non-holdable case.  Holdable is a
harder case as we currently drop all locks, and internally in fact close
and reopen the containers.  Dropping locks and doing something
reasonable for an updatable insensitive result set is strange - I am
sure this is why the standard does not even try to define it.
> The standard doesn't really offer much help as to what should and
> should not work here, since it requires updatable result sets to be
> sensitive. For sensitive cursors, one would navigate back and forth
> and there would be no (or less of a) need to remember and (in)validate
> row locations.  But we are building insensitive.. ;-)
> For the non-holdable case, I guess it boils down to a trade-off
> between the desire to avoid locking all result set rows and the desire
> to avoid new contracts between store and access...?
again to comment on this I want to understand if you don't hold locks
on the rows what you allow:
o do you delete/update a row that has changed since you read it into
your set

> For the holdable case, I am not sure I see how we can implement that
> without some kind of support from store..
> Thanks,
> Dag
> Mike> 
> Mike> Note that the current "in-place" compress will MOVE rows from one
> Mike> row location to another if one does not have a row lock on the row.
> Mike> This is done in the 2nd phase and only holds an intent lock, and
> Mike> exclusive row locks on the rows being moved.
> Mike> The off-line compress only does work under an X table lock.
> Mike> So the row that you are updating actually will exist in the table,
> Mike> but currently you will request the old location and will get back
> Mike> a delete row indicator.  I think because of this option 1 does not
> Mike> work.
> Mike> 
> Mike> The state of held cursors across commits is very murky in the standards.
> Mike> We looked very carefully at forward only held cursors, and the standards
> Mike> there are carefully worded to basically not promise anything about the 
> Mike> rows that were viewed that preceded the commit (clearly since the 
> Mike> standard says the only thing you can do after the commit is a next to 
> Mike> get a new row or close - never can access rows looked at before the
> Mike> commit).  What options are legal
> Mike> implementations of updatable scrollable result sets for held cursors 
> Mike> across commits?  Do the standards guarantee anything about data in the
> Mike> cursor looked at before the commit?
> Mike> 
> Mike> 
> Mike> 
> Mike> Andreas Korneliussen wrote:
> Mike> > Mike Matrigali wrote:
> Mike> > ..
> Mike> > 
> Mike> >> If possible I would like to see a solution that does not require special
> Mike> >> messages sent back and forth between modules about state.
> Mike> >>
> Mike> > 
> Mike> > I am not entirely sure what restrictions you want to put on the design,

> Mike> > it is a bit unclear to me.
> Mike> > 
> Mike> > I have considered some other solutions:
> Mike> > 
> Mike> > 1. Change the locking behaviour, so that a table intent lock which is 
> Mike> > set by an updatable cursor, is kept as long as the cursor is open - this

> Mike> > will ensure that the RowLocations are valid.
> Mike> > 
> Mike> > 2. After a commit, we could clear all data in the internal table in the

> Mike> > SUR. The problem with this approach is that the resultset would not 
> Mike> > necessarily be repopulated with the same data - it would be sensitive 
> Mike> > for changes across its own transactions commits, it would be highly 
> Mike> > ineffecient.
> Mike> > 
> Mike> > 3. Let the cursors notify the OnlineCompress module that it should fail

> Mike> > any attempt to compress/defragment or purge the table.
> Mike> > 
> Mike> > More details on what I suggested yesterday:
> Mike> > 
> Mike> > The OnlineCompress class could provide an event mechanism, where 
> Mike> > subscribers (OnlineCompressListener) register themselves to listen to 
> Mike> > OnlineCompressEvents. The ScrollInsensitiveResultSet class could then 
> Mike> > implement the OnlineCompressListener interface, and register itself once

> Mike> > it starts populating the table with RowLocations. The OnlineCompress 
> Mike> > class then simply notifies all listeners once it is doing defragment /

> Mike> > compress.
> Mike> > The listeners should unregister themselves (i.e 
> Mike> > ScrollInsensitiveResultSet class could do it once it closes). The 
> Mike> > OnlineCompress class could use a WeakHashMap to put the listeners into,

> Mike> > in case they are not well-behaved. I have not checked if derby already

> Mike> > has event manager type of modules, if it does, I would attempt to reuse

> Mike> > them.
> Mike> > 
> Mike> > Please also let me know if any of the other alternatives seems better.
> Mike> > 
> Mike> > 
> Mike> > Andreas
> Mike> > 
> Mike> > 
> Mike> >> Andreas Korneliussen wrote:
> Mike> >>
> Mike> >>
> Mike> >>> Some context: In scrollable updatable resultsets, we populate an
> Mike> >>> internal table with the following data:
> Mike> >>>
> Mike> >>> <Position> <RowLocation> <RowUpdated> <RowDeleted>
> Mike> >>>
> Mike> >>> Example layeout:
> Mike> >>>
> Mike> >>>  1         <1,10>         false        false        1,"a",3
> Mike> >>>  2         <1,11>         false        false        2,"b",2
> Mike> >>>  3         <1,12>         false        false        3,"c",9
> Mike> >>>
> Mike> >>>
> Mike> >>> When doing updateRow(), or deleteRow(), we use the RowLocation
> Mike> >>> navigate to the row being updated.
> Mike> >>>
> Mike> >>> Problem:
> Mike> >>> For holdable cursors, we will release the table intent lock when
> Mike> >>> commit on the transaction for the cursor.
> Mike> >>>
> Mike> >>> The table intent lock, prevents the system from doing a compress
of the
> Mike> >>> table, causing all RowLocations to be invalid. In addition, it
> Mike> >>> reuse of RowLocation for deleted + purged rows.
> Mike> >>>
> Mike> >>> In order to support holdable scrollable updatable cursors, we consider
> Mike> >>> having a service which allows the system to notify subscribers
> Mike> >>> cursors) that it has executed i.e a compress.
> Mike> >>>
> Mike> >>> If the user then calls updateRow() or deleteRow(), we can then
give an
> Mike> >>> exception like:
> Mike> >>>
> Mike> >>> "The row could not be updated, because its location has been updated
> Mike> >>> the system"
> Mike> >>>
> Mike> >>> In addition, we consider having a reclaim of locks, so that immediatly
> Mike> >>> after a commit, the new transaction with the holdable cursor, may
> Mike> >>> reclaim the table intent lock.  This will reduce the time period
> Mike> >>> the system may compress the table, however not completely remove
> Mike> >>> possibility of a compress.
> Mike> >>>
> Mike> >>> Any comments on implementing such strategy ?
> Mike> >>>
> Mike> >>> An alternative to this strategy, could be to go the other way:
> Mike> >>> notify the system that it should not do compress.
> Mike> >>>
> Mike> >>> I would appreciate feedback on this topic, especially if you find
> Mike> >>> pitfalls with the proposed strategies, or have better alternatives.
> Mike> >>>
> Mike> >>> Andreas
> Mike> >>>
> Mike> > 
> Mike> > 
> Mike> > 
> Mike> 

View raw message