How To Do The Record/row Level Locking In SQL 6.5/7.0?
Jan 3, 2000
I 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.
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
We're running a Sage CRM install with a SQL Server 2000 database at the back end. We're using the Sage web services API for updating data and a JDBC connection to retrieve data as it's so much quicker.
If I retrieve a record using the JDBC connection and then try and update the same record through the web services, the query times out as if the record is locked for updates. Has anyone experienced anything similar or know what I'm doing wrong? If I just use DriverManager.getConnection() to establish the connection instead of the datasource, and then continue with the same code I don't get these record locking problems. Please find more details below.
Thanks, Sarah
The JDBC provider for the datasource is a WebSphere embedded ConnectJDBC for SQL Server DataSource, using an implementation type of 'connection pool datasource'. We are using a container managed J2C authentication alias for logging on.
This is running on a Websphere Application Server v6.1.
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?
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.
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.
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
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'
I 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
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
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??
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?
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
I need help in record locking. As soon as user retrieve records I want to lock those records in database. When other user try to retrieve records from the same table i want to retrieve records those are not locked by other user. How do I do this? Please help...
I have a database programmer who in his latest application has deployed manual record locking into code to release certain records to certain users of the application at specified times.
Does anyone know how manual record locking will affect the SQL 2K system? If at all? Are there some standard practices with manual record locking that should be enforced?
Project spec: If user is making Delivery Order for sales order, the other user cannot make Delivery order for same sales order
How to lock a sales-order record, so other user cant use it, except for reporting (read only). I dont want to use a field since it has a lot of weakness. I am using VB6 and connect with ADO
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.
I'm working on a Planning Databse for a factory that allows jobs to be allocated to machines and to be given a priority. This info. is displayed on an Access 2000 form e.g.
MACHINE ONE MACHINE TWO Priority Job Number Priority Job Number 1 J111 1 J654 2 J562 2 J865 3 j231 3 J821
Both the Production Manager and the Factory Manager have this form open at all times. The problem is this, if for example the Factory Manager changes the priority of a job on his PC, the change is not shown on the Production Managers PC (cos' his screen has not been refreshed with update) The Production Manager therefore has old data on his screen and could mistakenly think that the job priority had not changed at all... I have managed to write some VBA code to get round this but I was wondering if there was any way of 'pushing ' changes to the front-end when they are made or of using record-locking etc. to achieve the same affect...
I am running an Access 2000 front end and MS SQL2000 as a backend and I am having problems with record locking.
I have just found out that If you use ODBC then Access acts as if No Locks are set. In an ideal world I need the record to be locked by a user as soon as they move onto it. If not as soon as they start editing it?
Up until this point I've been quite lazy in trying to understand how record locking really works in SQL server however one of my applications now has a bug so the time has come for me to take the issue seriously.
Basically, a user clicks a button in my app and updates a field in a table in SQL Server (say at 10:34:55). At the almost exactly the same time (lets say 10:34:57) another user tries to update the same record (not necessarily the same field) but the second users update is not connected to the database.
How can I store the second users update and then commit to database once the first user is finished...is it possible or do i need to approach this from a different angle?
I'm trying to figure out what happened.I have have two Tables in SQLServer called "Contacts", and "Jobs"Whenever someone changes a record in either table I update two fieldscalled "Modby" and "Moddt" with a trigger. The Trigger may alsocontain other things as well.Here's the wierd thing.If the Modby Moddt statement is the first statement in the trigger Idon't get a "record changed by another user" but if it comes later inthe trigger I do.I think it has something to do with the LockDelay Key but I'm not sure.Any Ideas?
Is there a way using ADO.NET to lock a record so that you can performan atomic Test and Set operation on one of its fields?I want to set an application level lock bit on a record's field (set itfrom 0 to 1) and at the same time determine that it was 0 before Ibegan and that I was the one who set it to 1, or that it was 1 before Igot to it (and thus I do not own the lock to the record).I don't see anything that explains if this can be done using ADO.NETusing MSSQL. Any help is greatly appreciated.
I found this interesting paper at http://ftp.sas.com/techsup/download/v8papers/odbcdb.pdf, comparing OLEDB to ODBC.
It says that OLEDB provides record locking where ODBC doesn't. I can't quite reconcile that statement; what does it mean? How is the access layer involved in determining type of locks used by the server in executing a statement?
Can someone please tell me which type of Isolation Levels in the Database Engine to avoid the above side effects respectively.
For Record Locking issue: Example, two editors make an electronic copy of the same document. Each editor changes the copy independently and then saves the changed copy thereby overwriting the original document. The editor who saves the changed copy last overwrites the changes made by the other editor. This problem could be avoided if one editor could not access the file until the other editor had finished and committed the transaction.
For the above example, is it possible to do like this way: Editor 1: SELECT and Lock a record Editor 2: Before SELECT the record, check for the record whether it is locked or not. If it is not lock, then the record can be selected
I have built my own functions in the past that involve a timestamp and record lock column in each table (to support some other DB).
I am currently using SQL 2000 and was wondering if there is a better (OK, easier) way to lock records and even prevent edits from taking place when a record is open.
I've been considering implementing a P2P Transactional Replication concept using three different sites. My qustion is:
Instead of have records only available for editing by specific sql servers (partitioning), can I implement some sort of record locking? For exampel all sql nodes have r/w access to all data unless one sql node has the record locked?
I have a problem with record locking / blocking within an application.The app is quite straight forward. Written in Delphi 5 using BDE toaccess a SQL 7 database (Win2K server).Every so often the users (when they bother to tell me) find that theapplication locks up and they are unable to work. No errors areproduced (error trapping in the app is good). They 'shout round' toeach other and get someone to exit the data entry screen. This seemsto free up the locking/blocking issue.There are about 50,000 records in the table (script below) and it isaccessed through a simple query (script below). All users will accessthis in the same way. I'm assuming that a new record is being editedwhen the problem occurs, but this shouldn't cause locking/blockinguntil it gets committed (right ?).The problem is tracking down the source of this and finding thepattern which I can work back from. I've used Erland's aba_lockinfoscript (a few months back admittedly so will re-visit this), butnothing obvious is jumping out at me.No other tables should be in use at this point.Any suggestions ?ThanksRyan/* Code for query component - users navigate to the record they needto editthere could be 15,000 records showing as outstanding - perhaps thisis the area that I need to re-visit so that less records can be edited? */SELECT *FROMPostReceivedWHEREToDelete = 0 ANDCompleted <> 1ORDER BYPostID/* Table in question */if exists (select * from sysobjects where id =object_id(N'[dbo].[PostReceived]') and OBJECTPROPERTY(id,N'IsUserTable') = 1)drop table [dbo].[PostReceived]GOCREATE TABLE [dbo].[PostReceived] ([PostID] [int] IDENTITY (1, 1) NOT NULL ,[Type] [varchar] (100) NULL ,[ClientsName] [varchar] (100) NULL ,[DateReceived] [datetime] NULL ,[EnteredBy] [varchar] (100) NULL ,[AssignedTo] [varchar] (100) NULL ,[DateAssignedTo] [datetime] NULL ,[Adviser] [varchar] (100) NULL ,[TargetDate] [datetime] NULL ,[CompletionDate] [datetime] NULL ,[Completed] [bit] NULL ,[KeyAccount] [varchar] (100) NULL ,[Notes] [text] NULL ,[Specific1] [varchar] (20) NULL ,[Specific2] [varchar] (20) NULL ,[Specific3] [varchar] (20) NULL ,[Specific4] [varchar] (20) NULL ,[Specific5] [varchar] (20) NULL ,[ToDelete] [bit] NULL ,[EnterUser] [varchar] (20) NULL) ON [PRIMARY] TEXTIMAGE_ON [PRIMARY]GO
can someone pls show me a way to get an unique sequence at below senario:
PC1 & PC2 using their own local client progam to access to Database Server at SERVER1. In the SERVER1, there is a table SEQUENCE in a database DATABASE1. And the table's structure of SEQUENCE are SeqType & SeqNo. Here is the sample data:
SeqType SeqNo Invoice 100 DeliveryOrder 200
Now, how to prevent PC1 & PC2 to get a same Invoice No. if they request the Invoice No. at the same time? Is it possible to lock the record Invoice when i perform a SELECT statement, then i update the Invoice to 101, lastly release the lock for Invoice?
