db-derby-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jacopo Cappellato <jacopo.cappell...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Unexpected behavior for concurrent selection of an uncommitted record inserted in a different thread
Date Fri, 07 Feb 2014 21:37:34 GMT
Brett, Mike,

thank you for your clear explanations: it makes sense to me now.

Jacopo

On Feb 7, 2014, at 8:48 PM, mike matrigali <mikemapp1@gmail.com> wrote:

> Brett is right, please ignore my other posting.  I missed that same key was being looked
at.  Derby uses locking to implement sql concurrency which
> leads to this behavior.  Other products (or instances of products depending on what storage
engine mysql is using), may use versioning
> instead which may result in different behavior.  I believe the Derby behavior
> is within the SQL standard, but is less concurrent than a versioning scheme.
> 
> /mikem
> 
> On 2/7/2014 11:20 AM, Bergquist, Brett wrote:
>> I think this is the behavior as described in this document:
>> 
>> http://docs.oracle.com/javadb/10.5.3.0/devguide/rdevconcepts8424.html
>> 
>> See the table entry on read-committed and it looks like the insert statement has
an exclusive lock on inserted record and as such the select by T2 for that specific record
will block on the exclusive lock.
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jacopo Cappellato [mailto:jacopo.cappellato@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 12:59 PM
>> To: derby-user@db.apache.org
>> Subject: Unexpected behavior for concurrent selection of an uncommitted record inserted
in a different thread
>> 
>> Hi all!
>> 
>> While I was writing some unit tests for the Apache OFBiz project (that by default
runs on Derby) I noticed a behavior of Derby that I didn't expect and I would love to get
your opinion.
>> Here is my use case:
>> 
>> * Derby 10.10.1.1
>> * there are two concurrent transactions T1 and T2
>> * isolation level is "Read Committed"
>> * in transaction T1 a record with primary key 123 is inserted in a table; then other
long running tasks are executed (i.e. the transaction is not immediately committed)
>> * in the meantime T2 attempts to select from the same table the record with primary
key 123
>> 
>> Behavior: T2 blocks on the select statement waiting for transaction T1 to release
the write lock; this can cause a lock wait timeout Expected behavior: since T1 is not committed,
T2 should not be able to select the record; I was expecting that the select statement in T2
would return an empty result set rather than blocking waiting for the lock held by T1 to be
released; in fact this is what we get with MySQL and Postgres.
>> 
>> What do you think?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Jacopo Cappellato
>> 
> 


Mime
View raw message