Search Results

Search found 2359 results on 95 pages for 'transaction'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 4/95 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • SQL 2005 Transaction Rollback Hung–unresolved deadlock

    - by steveh99999
    Encountered an interesting issue recently with a SQL 2005 sp3 Enterprise Edition system. Every weekend, a full database reindex was being run on this system – normally this took around one and a half hours. Then, one weekend, the job ran for over 17 hours  - and had yet to complete... At this point, DBA cancelled the job. Job status is now cancelled – issue over…   However, cancelling the job had not killed the reindex transaction – DBCC OPENTRAN was still showing the transaction being open. The oldest open transaction in the database was now over 17 hours old.  Consequently, transaction log % used growing dramatically and locks still being held in the database... Further attempts to kill the transaction did nothing. ie we had a transaction which could not be killed. In sysprocesses, it was apparent the SPID was in rollback status, but the spid was not accumulating CPU or IO. Was the SPID stuck ? On examination of the SQL errorlog – shortly after the reindex had started, a whole bunch of deadlock output had been produced by trace flag 1222. Then this :- spid5s      ***Stack Dump being sent to   xxxxxxx\SQLDump0042.txt spid5s      * ******************************************************************************* spid5s      * spid5s      * BEGIN STACK DUMP: spid5s      *   12/05/10 01:04:47 spid 5 spid5s      * spid5s      * Unresolved deadlock spid5s      * spid5s      *   spid5s      * ******************************************************************************* spid5s      * ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- spid5s      * Short Stack Dump spid5s      Stack Signature for the dump is 0x000001D7 spid5s      External dump process return code 0x20000001. Unresolved deadlock – don’t think I’ve ever seen one of these before…. A quick call to Microsoft support confirmed the following bug had been hit :- http://support.microsoft.com/kb/961479 So, only option to get rid of the hung spid – to restart SQL Server… Fortunately SQL Server restarted without any issues. I was pleasantly surprised to see that recovery on this particular database was fast. However, restarting SQL Server to fix an issue is not something I would normally rush to do... Short term fix – the reindex was changed to use MAXDOP of 1. Longer term fix will be to apply the correct CU, or wait for SQL 2005 sp 4 ?? This should be released any day soon I hope..

    Read the article

  • Transaction log is full and does not free up space

    - by titanium
    Hi, I have a database in SQL Server 2005 whose transaction log becomes full. It is using snapshot replication. I noticed the transaction log is not freeing up space. So I created an additional transaction log. Three days has passed and this first transaction log is still full. I performed a full database backup and transaction backup. Then I tried to shrink the transaction log but the shrink failed. Can anyone advise why shrinking transaction log is failing? ANy other recommendation on how to resolve the problem?

    Read the article

  • How should I implement Transaction database EJB 3.0

    - by JamesBoyZ
    In the CustomerTransactions entity, I have the following field to record what the customer bought: @ManyToMany private List<Item> listOfItemsBought; When I think more about this field, there's a chance it may not work because merchants are allowed to change item's information (e.g. price, discount, etc...). Hence, this field will not be able to record what the customer actually bought when the transaction occurred. At the moment, I can only think of 2 ways to make it work. I will record the transaction details into a String field. I feel that this way would be messy if I need to extract some information about the transaction later on. Whenever the merchant changes an item's information, I will not update directly to that item's fields. Instead, I will create another new item with all the new information and keep the old item untouched. I feel that this way is better because I can easily extract information about the transaction later on. However, the bad side is that my Item table may contain a lot of rows. I'd be very grateful if someone could give me an advice on how I should tackle this problem. UPDATE: I'd like to add more information about the current design. public class Customer implements Serializable { @OneToMany private List<CustomerTransactions> listOfTransactions; } public class CustomerTransactions implements Serializable { @ManyToMany private List<Item> listOfItemsBought; } public class Merchant implements Serializable { @OneToMany private List<Item> listOfSellingItems; }

    Read the article

  • Troubleshooting Blocked Transaction in SQL Server

    - by ChrisD
    While troubleshooting a blocked transaction issue recently, I found this code online.  My apologies in not citing its source, but its lost in my browse history some where.   While the transaction is executing and blocked, open a connection to the database containing the transaction and run the following to return both the SQL statement blocked (the Victim), as well as the statement that’s causing the block (the Culprit)   -- prepare a table so that we can filter out sp_who2 results DECLARE @who TABLE(BlockedId INT, Status VARCHAR(MAX), LOGIN VARCHAR(MAX), HostName VARCHAR(MAX), BlockedById VARCHAR(MAX), DBName VARCHAR(MAX), Command VARCHAR(MAX), CPUTime INT, DiskIO INT, LastBatch VARCHAR(MAX), ProgramName VARCHAR(MAX), SPID_1 INT, REQUESTID INT) INSERT INTO @who EXEC sp_who2 --select the blocked and blocking queries (if any) as SQL text SELECT ( SELECT TEXT FROM sys.dm_exec_sql_text( (SELECT handle FROM ( SELECT CAST(sql_handle AS VARBINARY(128)) AS handle FROM sys.sysprocesses WHERE spid = BlockedId ) query) ) ) AS 'Blocked Query (Victim)', ( SELECT TEXT FROM sys.dm_exec_sql_text( (SELECT handle FROM ( SELECT CAST(sql_handle AS VARBINARY(128)) AS handle FROM sys.sysprocesses WHERE spid = BlockedById ) query) ) ) AS 'Blocking Query (Culprit)' FROM @who WHERE BlockedById != ' .'

    Read the article

  • Alternatives to Pessimistic Locking in Cluster Applications

    - by amphibient
    I am researching alternatives to database-level pessimistic locking to achieve transaction isolation in a cluster of Java applications going against the same database. Synchronizing concurrent access in the application tier is clearly not a solution in the present configuration because the same database transaction can be invoked from multiple JVMs concurrently. Currently, we are subject to occasional race conditions which, due to the optimistic locking we have in place via Hibernate, cause a StaleObjectStateException exception and data loss. I have a moderately large transaction within the scope of my refactoring project. Let's describe it as updating one top-level table row and then making various related inserts and/or updates to several of its child entities. I would like to insure exclusive access to the top-level table row and all of the children to be affected but I would like to stay away from pessimistic locking at the database level for performance reasons mostly. We use Hibernate for ORM. Does it make sense to start a single (perhaps synchronous) message queue application into which this method could be moved to insure synchronized access as opposed to each cluster node using its own, which is a clear race condition hazard? I am mentioning this approach even though I am not confident in it because both the top-level table row and its children could also be updated from other system calls, not just the mentioned transaction. So I am seeking to design a solution where the top-level table row and its children will all somehow be pseudo-locked (exclusive transaction isolation) but at the application and not the database level. I am open to ideas and suggestions, I understand this is not a very cut and dried challenge.

    Read the article

  • An XEvent a Day (23 of 31) – How it Works – Multiple Transaction Log Files

    - by Jonathan Kehayias
    While working on yesterday’s blog post The Future – fn_dblog() No More? Tracking Transaction Log Activity in Denali I did a quick Google search to find a specific blog post by Paul Randal to use it as a reference, and in the results returned another blog post titled, Investigating Multiple Transaction Log Files in SQL Server caught my eye so I opened it in a new tab in IE and went about finishing the blog post.  It probably wouldn’t have gotten my attention if it hadn’t been on the SqlServerPedia...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Optimizing Transaction Log Throughput

    As a DBA, it is vital to manage transaction log growth explicitly, rather than let SQL Server auto-growth events "manage" it for you. If you undersize the log, and then let SQL Server auto-grow it in small increments, you'll end up with a very fragmented log. Examples in the article, extracted from SQL Server Transaction Log Management by Tony Davis and Gail Shaw, demonstrate how this can have a significant impact on the performance of any SQL Server operations that need to read the log.

    Read the article

  • shared transaction ID function among multiple threads

    - by poly
    I'm writing an application in C that requires multiple threads to request a unique transaction ID from a function as shown below; struct list{ int id; struct list *next }; function generate_id() { linked-list is built here to hold 10 millions } my concern is how to sync between two or more threads so that transaction id can be unique among them without using mutex, is this possible? Please share anything even if I need to change linked list to something else.

    Read the article

  • Free eBook: SQL Server Transaction Log Management

    When a SQL Server database is operating smoothly and performing well, there is no need to be particularly aware of the transaction log, beyond ensuring that every database has an appropriate backup regime and restore plan in place. When things go wrong, however, a DBA's reputation depends on a deeper understanding of the transaction log, both what it does, and how it works. Get to grips with SQL Server replicationIn this new eBook Sebastian Meine gives a hands-on introduction to SQL Server replication, including implementation and security. Download free ebook now.

    Read the article

  • MySQL Cluster transaction isolation level - READ_COMMITTED

    - by Doori Bar
    I'm learning by mostly reading the documentation. Unfortunately, http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/set-transaction.html#isolevel_read-committed doesn't say anything, while it says everything. Confused? Me too. ndb engine supports only "READ_COMMITTED" transaction isolation level. A. It starts by saying "sets and reads its own fresh snapshot", which I translate to: The transaction is having a separated 'zone' which whatever it stores there - is what it reads back. B. While out-side of the transaction, the old-values are unlocked. C. It continues with: "for locking reads" sentence - No idea what it means. Question: they claim only READ_COMMITTED transaction isolation level is supported, but while handling a BLOB or a TEXT, they say the isolation is now "locked for reading" too. So is it a contradiction? can a transaction LOCK for reading just as well while handling something other than BLOB/TEXT? (such as integers)

    Read the article

  • Should I commit or rollback a transaction that creates a temp table, reads, then deletes it?

    - by Triynko
    To select information related to a list of hundreds of IDs... rather than make a huge select statement, I create temp table, insert the ids into it, join it with a table to select the rows matching the IDs, then delete the temp table. So this is essentially a read operation, with no permanent changes made to any persistent database tables. I do this in a transaction, to ensure the temp table is deleted when I'm finished. My question is... what happens when I commit such a transaction vs. let it roll it back? Performance-wise... does the DB engine have to do more work to roll back the transaction vs committing it? Is there even a difference since the only modifications are done to a temp table? Related question here, but doesn't answer my specific case involving temp tables: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/309834/should-i-commit-or-rollback-a-read-transaction

    Read the article

  • Javascript html5 database transaction problem in loops

    - by Marek
    I'm hittig my head on this and i will be glad for any help. I need to store in a database a context (a list of string ids) for another page. I open a page with a list of artworks and this page save into the database those artowrks ids. When i click on an artwork i open its webpage but i can access the database to know the context and refer to the next and prev artwork. This is my code to retrieve the contex: updateContext = function () { alert("updating context"); try { mydb.transaction( function(transaction) { transaction.executeSql("select artworks.number from artworks, collections where collections.id = artworks.section_id and collections.short_name in ('cro', 'cra', 'crp', 'crm');", [], contextDataHandler, errorHandler); }); } catch(e) { alert(e.message); } } the contextDatahandler function then iterates through the results and fill again the current_context table: contextDataHandler = function(transaction, results) { try { mydb.transaction( function(transaction) { transaction.executeSql("drop table current_context;", [], nullDataHandler, errorHandler); transaction.executeSql("create table current_context(id String);", [], nullDataHandler, errorHandler); } ) } catch(e) { alert(e.message); } var s = ""; for (var i=0; i < results.rows.length; i++) { var item = results.rows.item(0); s += item['number'] + " "; mydb.transaction( function(tx) { tx.executeSql("insert into current_context(id) values (?);", [item['number']]); } ) } alert(s); } the result is, i get the current_context table deleted, recreated, and filled, but all the rows are filled with the LAST artwork id. the query to retrieve the artworks ids works, so i think it's a transaction problem, but i cant figure out where. thanks for any help

    Read the article

  • InvalidOperationException when executing SqlCommand with transaction

    - by Serhat Özgel
    I have this code, running parallel in two separate threads. It works fine for a few times, but at some random point it throws InvalidOperationException: The transaction is either not associated with the current connection or has been completed. At the point of exception, I am looking inside the transaction with visual studio and verify its connection is set normally. Also command.Transaction._internalTransaction. _transactionState is set to Active and IsZombied property is set to false. This is a test application and I am using Thread.Sleep for creating longer transactions and causing overlaps. Why may the exception being thrown and what can I do about it? IDbCommand command = new SqlCommand("Select * From INFO"); IDbConnection connection = new SqlConnection(connectionString); command.Connection = connection; IDbTransaction transaction = null; try { connection.Open(); transaction = connection.BeginTransaction(); command.Transaction = transaction; command.ExecuteNonQuery(); // Sometimes throws exception Thread.Sleep(forawhile); // For overlapping transactions running in parallel transaction.Commit(); } catch (ApplicationException exception) { if (transaction != null) { transaction.Rollback(); } } finally { connection.Close(); }

    Read the article

  • need example sql transaction procedures for sales tracking or financial database [closed]

    - by fa1c0n3r
    hi, i am making a database for an accounting/sales type system similar to a car sales database and would like to make some transactions for the following real world actions salesman creates new product shipped onto floor (itempk, car make, year, price).   salesman changes price.   salesman creates sale entry for product sold (salespk, itemforeignkey, price sold, salesman).   salesman cancels item for removed product.   salesman cancels sale for cancelled sale    the examples i have found online are too generic...like this is a transaction... i would like something resembling what i am trying to do to understand it.  anybody have some good similar or related sql examples i can look at to design these? do people use transactions for sales databases?  or if you have done this kind of sql transaction before could you make an outline for how these could be made?  thanks  my thread so far on stack overflow... http://stackoverflow.com/q/4975484/613799

    Read the article

  • SQL Server Transaction Log Fragmentation: a Primer

    Generally, you will have no need to worry about the number of virtual log files in your transaction log. However, if you use the default settings for 'auto-grow', you can end up with such 'fragmentation' in your transaction log as to affect performance noticably. How can this be avoided? How can you tell it's a problem? What do you do about it? Greg explains. "SQL Backup Pro 7 improves on an already wonderful product" - Don KolendaHave you tried version 7 yet? Get faster, smaller, fully verified backups. Download a free trial of SQL Backup Pro 7.

    Read the article

  • Using INSERT / OUTPUT in a SQL Server Transaction

    Frequently I find myself in situations where I need to insert records into a table in a set-based operation wrapped inside of a transaction where secondarily, and within the same transaction, I spawn-off subsequent inserts into related tables where I need to pass-in key values that were the outcome of the initial INSERT command. Thanks to a Transact/SQL enhancement in SQL Server, this just became much easier and can be done in a single statement... WITHOUT A TRIGGER! Join SQL Backup’s 35,000+ customers to compress and strengthen your backups "SQL Backup will be a REAL boost to any DBA lucky enough to use it." Jonathan Allen. Download a free trial now.

    Read the article

  • EJB3 Transaction Propogation

    - by Matt S.
    I have a stateless bean something like: @Stateless public class MyStatelessBean implements MyStatelessLocal, MyStatelessRemote { @PersistenceContext(unitName="myPC") private EntityManager mgr; @TransationAttribute(TransactionAttributeType.SUPPORTED) public void processObjects(List<Object> objs) { // this method just processes the data; no need for a transaction for(Object obj : objs) { this.process(obj); } } @TransationAttribute(TransactionAttributeType.REQUIRES_NEW) public void process(Object obj) { // do some work with obj that must be in the scope of a transaction this.mgr.merge(obj); // ... this.mgr.merge(obj); // ... this.mgr.flush(); } } The typically usage then is the client would call processObjects(...), which doesn't actually interact with the entity manager. It does what it needs to do and calls process(...) individually for each object to process. The duration of process(...) is relatively short, but processObjects(...) could take a very long time to run through everything. Therefore I don't want it to maintain an open transaction. I do need the individual process(...) operations to operate within their own transaction. This should be a new transaction for every call. Lastly I'd like to keep the option open for the client to call process(...) directly. I've tried a number of different transaction types: never, not supported, supported (on processObjects) and required, requires new (on process) but I get TransactionRequiredException every time merge() is called. I've been able to make it work by splitting up the methods into two different beans: @Stateless @TransationAttribute(TransactionAttributeType.NOT_SUPPORTED) public class MyStatelessBean1 implements MyStatelessLocal1, MyStatelessRemote1 { @EJB private MyStatelessBean2 myBean2; public void processObjects(List<Object> objs) { // this method just processes the data; no need for a transaction for(Object obj : objs) { this.myBean2.process(obj); } } } @Stateless public class MyStatelessBean2 implements MyStatelessLocal2, MyStatelessRemote2 { @PersistenceContext(unitName="myPC") private EntityManager mgr; @TransationAttribute(TransactionAttributeType.REQUIRES_NEW) public void process(Object obj) { // do some work with obj that must be in the scope of a transaction this.mgr.merge(obj); // ... this.mgr.merge(obj); // ... this.mgr.flush(); } } but I'm still curious if it's possible to accomplish this in one class. It looks to me like the transaction manager only operates at the bean level, even when individual methods are given more specific annotations. So if I mark one method in a way to prevent the transaction from starting calling other methods within that same instance will also not create a transaction, no matter how they're marked? I'm using JBoss Application Server 4.2.1.GA, but non-specific answers are welcome / preferred.

    Read the article

  • Hibernate save() and transaction rollback

    - by Marco
    Hi, In Hibernate when i save() an object in a transaction, and then i rollback it, the saved object still remains in the DB. It's strange because this issue doesn't happen with the update() or delete() method, just with save(). Here is the code i'm using: DbEntity dbEntity = getDbEntity(); HibernateUtil.beginTransaction(); Session session = HibernateUtil.getCurrentSession(); session.save(dbEntity); HibernateUtil.rollbackTransaction(); And here is the HibernateUtil class (just the involved functions, i guarantee the getSessionFactory() method works well - there is an Interceptor handler, but it doesn't matter now): private static final ThreadLocal<Session> threadSession = new ThreadLocal<Session>(); private static final ThreadLocal<Transaction> threadTransaction = new ThreadLocal<Transaction>(); /** * Retrieves the current Session local to the thread. * <p/> * If no Session is open, opens a new Session for the running thread. * * @return Session */ public static Session getCurrentSession() throws HibernateException { Session s = (Session) threadSession.get(); try { if (s == null) { log.debug("Opening new Session for this thread."); if (getInterceptor() != null) { log.debug("Using interceptor: " + getInterceptor().getClass()); s = getSessionFactory().openSession(getInterceptor()); } else { s = getSessionFactory().openSession(); } threadSession.set(s); } } catch (HibernateException ex) { throw new HibernateException(ex); } return s; } /** * Start a new database transaction. */ public static void beginTransaction() throws HibernateException { Transaction tx = (Transaction) threadTransaction.get(); try { if (tx == null) { log.debug("Starting new database transaction in this thread."); tx = getCurrentSession().beginTransaction(); threadTransaction.set(tx); } } catch (HibernateException ex) { throw new HibernateException(ex); } } /** * Rollback the database transaction. */ public static void rollbackTransaction() throws HibernateException { Transaction tx = (Transaction) threadTransaction.get(); try { threadTransaction.set(null); if ( tx != null && !tx.wasCommitted() && !tx.wasRolledBack() ) { log.debug("Tyring to rollback database transaction of this thread."); tx.rollback(); } } catch (HibernateException ex) { throw new HibernateException(ex); } finally { closeSession(); } } Thanks

    Read the article

  • Fixing "Lock wait timeout exceeded; try restarting transaction" for a 'stuck" Mysql table?

    - by Tom
    From a script I sent a query like this thousands of times to my local database: update some_table set some_column = some_value I forgot to add the where part, so the same column was set to the same a value for all the rows in the table and this was done thousands of times and the column was indexed, so the corresponding index was probably updated too lots of times. I noticed something was wrong, because it took too long, so I killed the script. I even rebooted my computer since them, but something stuck in the table, because simple queries take a very long time to run and when I try dropping the relevant index it fails with this message: Lock wait timeout exceeded; try restarting transaction It's an innodb table, so stuck the transaction is probably implicit. How can I fix this table and remove the stuck transaction from it?

    Read the article

  • MySQL transaction conundrum

    - by David Faitelson
    I need to perform several inserts in a single atomic transaction. For example: start transaction; insert ... insert ... commit; However when MySQL encounters an error it aborts only the particular statement that caused the error. For example, if there is an error in the second insert statement the commit will still take place and the first insert statement will be recorded. Thus, when errors occur a MySQL transaction is not really a transaction. To overcome this problem I have used an error exit handler where I rollback the transaction. Now the transaction is silently aborted but I don't know what was the problem. So here is the conundrum for you: How can I both make MySQL abort a transaction when it encounters an error, and pass the error code on to the caller?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >