Asynchronous transactions in MySQL InnoDB? - mysql

I want to implement parallel processing of multiple DB transactions which lock only a few rows for short periods of time. For Example we have this query executed every time an user opens the page:
START TRANSACTION;
SELECT * FROM table_1 WHERE worktime < UNIX_TIMESTAMP() FOR UPDATE;
...WORK...
...UPDATE...
COMMIT;
In a multiuser environment, this kind of row locking would lead to Deadlocks every time the select statement would be executed. Currently I would solve the problem using a second table to store the locked IDs:
START TRANSACTION;
LOCK TABLE table_1 WRITE, table_locks WRITE;
SELECT id FROM table_1 WHERE worktime < UNIX_TIMESTAMP() AND id NOT IN table_locks;
...insert locked Ids into Table "table_locks"...
...this prevents other calls to read from this table...
UNLOCK TABLES;
COMMIT;
...Perform calculations and Updates...
DELETE FROM table_locks WHERE id = ...
The problem of this method is, that if something goes wrong after "locking" a row by storing its ID in the table_locks table, this Row would never be updated anymore. Of course I can set a timeout to release such locks automatically after some time, but this doesen't seem properly done to me. But is there something possible like:
SELECT * FROM table_1 WHERE worktime < UNIX_TIMESTAMP() AND NOT LOCKED BY OTHER TRANSACTION FOR UPDATE
?

You could mark rows to be done by your session:
UPDATE table_1
SET marked_by_connection_id = CONNECTION_ID(),
marked_time = NOW()
WHERE worktime < UNIX_TIMESTAMP() AND marked_by_connection_id IS NULL;
Then you can feel free to work on any row that has your connection id, knowing that another session will not try to claim them:
SELECT * FROM table_1 WHERE marked_by_connection_id = CONNECTION_ID();
. . .
No locking or non-autocommit transaction is needed.
At the end of your session, unmark any rows you had marked:
UPDATE table_1 SET marked_by_connection_id = NULL
WHERE marked_by_connection_id = CONNECTION_ID();
Or alternatively your app could unmark individual rows as it processes them.
But perhaps your session dies before it can unmark those rows. So some rows were marked, but never processed. Run a cron job that clears such abandoned marked rows, allowing them to get re-processed by another worker, although a bit late.
UPDATE table_1 SET marked_by_connection_id = NULL
WHERE marked_time < NOW() - INTERVAL 30 MINUTE;

Related

MySQL SET user variable locks rows and doesn't obey REPEATABLE READ

I've encountered an undocumented behavior of "SET #my_var = (SELECT ..)" inside a transaction:
The first one is that it locks rows ( depends whether it is a unique index or not ).
Example -
START TRANSACTION;
SET #my_var = (SELECT id from table_name where id = 1);
select trx_rows_locked from information_schema.innodb_trx;
ROLLBACKL;
The output is 1 row locked, which is strange, it shouldn't gain a reading lock.
Also, the equivalent statement SELECT id INTO #my_var won't produce a lock.
It can lead to a deadlock in case of an UPDATED after the SET statement ( for 2 concurrent requests )
In REPEATABLE READ -
The SELECT inside the SET statement gets a new snapshot of the data, instead of using the original SNAPSHOT.
SESSION 1:
SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL REPEATABLE READ;
START transaction;
SELECT data FROM my_table where id = 2; # Output : 2
SESSION 2:
UPDATE my_table set data = 3 where id = 2 ;
SESSION 1:
SET #data = (SELECT data FROM my_table where id = 2);
SELECT #data; # Output : 3, instead of 2
ROLLBACK;
However, I would expect that #data will contain the original value from the first snapshot ( 2 ).
If I use SELECT data into #data from my_table where id = 2 then I will get the expected value - 2;
Do you have an idea what is the source of the different behavior of SET = (SELECT ..) compared to SELECT data INTO #var FROM .. ?
Thanks.
Correct — when you SELECT in a context where you're copying the results into a variable or a table, it implicitly works as if you had used a locking read SELECT ... FOR SHARE.
This means it places a shared lock on the rows examined, and it also means that the statement reads only the most recently committed version of rows, as if your transaction were in READ-COMMITTED isolation level.
I'm not sure why SELECT ... INTO #var does not do the same kind of implicit locking in MySQL 8.0. My memory is that in older versions of MySQL it did do locking in that query form. I've searched the manual for an explanation but I can't find one yet.
Other cases that implicitly lock the rows examined by SELECT, and therefore reads data as if you transaction is READ-COMMITTED:
INSERT INTO <table> SELECT ...
UPDATE or DELETE multi-table, even if you don't update or delete a given table, the rows joined become locked.
SELECT inside a trigger

Understanding InnoDB Repeatable Read isolation level snapshots

I have the following table:
CREATE TABLE `accounts` (
`name` varchar(50) NOT NULL,
`balance` int NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`name`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8mb4 COLLATE=utf8mb4_0900_ai_ci
And it has two accounts in it. "Bob" has a balance of 100. "Jim" has a balance of 200.
I run this query to transfer 50 from Jim to Bob:
SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL REPEATABLE READ;
BEGIN;
SELECT * FROM accounts;
SELECT SLEEP(10);
SET #bobBalance = (SELECT balance FROM accounts WHERE name = 'bob' FOR UPDATE);
SET #jimBalance = (SELECT balance FROM accounts WHERE name = 'jim' FOR UPDATE);
UPDATE accounts SET balance = #bobBalance + 50 WHERE name = 'bob';
UPDATE accounts SET balance = #jimBalance - 50 WHERE name = 'jim';
COMMIT;
While that query is sleeping, I run the following query in a different session to set Jim's balance to 500:
UPDATE accounts SET balance = 500 WHERE name = 'jim';
What I thought would happen is that this would cause a bug. The transaction would set Jim's balance to 150, because the first read in the transaction (before the SLEEP) would establish a snapshot in which Jim's balance is 200, and that snapshot would be used in the later query to get Jim's balance. So we would subtract 50 from 200 even though Jim's balance has actually been changed to 500 by the other query.
But that's not what happens. Actually, the end result is correct. Bob has 150 and Jim has 450. But I don't understand why this is.
The MySQL documentation says about Repeatable Read:
This is the default isolation level for InnoDB. Consistent reads within the same transaction read the snapshot established by the first read. This means that if you issue several plain (nonlocking) SELECT statements within the same transaction, these SELECT statements are consistent also with respect to each other. See Section 15.7.2.3, “Consistent Nonlocking Reads”.
So what am I missing here? Why does it seem like the SELECT statements in the transaction are not all using a snapshot established by the first SELECT statement?
The repeatable-read behavior only works for non-locking SELECT queries. It reads from the snapshot established by the first query in the transaction.
But any locking SELECT query reads the latest committed version of the row, as if you had started your transaction in READ-COMMITTED isolation level.
A SELECT is implicitly a locking read if it's involved in any kind of SQL statement that modifies data.
For example:
INSERT INTO table2 SELECT * FROM table1 WHERE ...;
The above locks examined rows in table1, even though the statement is just copying them to table2.
SET #myvar = (SELECT ... FROM table1 WHERE ...);
This is also copying a value from table1, into a variable. It locks the examined row in table1.
Likewise SELECT statements that are invoked in a trigger, or as part of a multi-table UPDATE or DELETE, and so on. Anytime the SELECT is part of a larger statement that modifies any data (in a table or in a variable), it locks the rows examined by the SELECT.
And therefore it's a locking read, and behaves like an UPDATE with respect to which row version it reads.

Is it possible to create a Lost Update with MySQL Workbench

I want to create a Lost Update with MySQL Workbench. Therefore, I have 2 connections to my database and 2 transactions. I also changed the transaction isolation level to read uncommitted but transaction A uses the current data when the update statement starts. It never uses the data from the first select statement and with select ... for update the transaction b is blocked.
Transaction A (starts first):
Start transaction;
SELECT * FROM table;
Select sleep(10); -- <- Transaction B executes in this 10 seconds
UPDATE table SET Number = Number + 10 WHERE FirstName = "Name1";
COMMIT;
Transaction B:
Start transaction;
UPDATE table SET Number = Number - 5 WHERE FirstName = "Name1";
COMMIT;
Is it possible to create this failure with MySQL Workbench. What´s wrong with my code?
Thanks for your help
The update in A work with data after the sleep is executed. Select before does nothing in the transaction.

MySql- When should I use lock

I have a users table with gifts_count and user_id fields
Should I add lock to the next statement(it may come from many threads)?
update users set gifts_count = gifts_count + 1 where users.user_id = user_id;
Your best bet would be to use transactions rather than explicit table locking.
An example session would look something like this:
START TRANSACTION;
UPDATE `users` SET `gifts_count` = `gifts_count` + 1 WHERE `users`.`user_id` = user_id;
COMMIT;
You can also do some integrity checks if you needed to (depending on what you're doing), between the query and the COMMIT, if something goes wrong, you can always use ROLLBACK.
If you want to prevent reads on the specific row when it's updated (if using InnoDB with row-level locking), you can run your SELECT query with LOCK IN SHARE MODE at the end, like so:
SELECT * FROM `users` `users`.`user_id` = user_id LOCK IN SHARE MODE;
That query will hang until your transaction is COMMITed or ROLLBACK'd.

MySQL transaction and triggers

Hey guys, here is one I am not able to figure out. We have a table in database, where PHP inserts records. I created a trigger to compute a value to be inserted as well. The computed value should be unique. However it happens from time to time that I have exact same number for few rows in the table. The number is combination of year, month and day and a number of the order for that day. I thought that single operation of insert is atomic and table is locked while transaction is in progress. I need the computed value to be unique...The server is version 5.0.88. Server is Linux CentOS 5 with dual core processor.
Here is the trigger:
CREATE TRIGGER bi_order_data BEFORE INSERT ON order_data
FOR EACH ROW BEGIN
SET NEW.auth_code = get_auth_code();
END;
Corresponding routine looks like this:
CREATE FUNCTION `get_auth_code`() RETURNS bigint(20)
BEGIN
DECLARE my_auth_code, acode BIGINT;
SELECT MAX(d.auth_code) INTO my_auth_code
FROM orders_data d
JOIN orders o ON (o.order_id = d.order_id)
WHERE DATE(NOW()) = DATE(o.date);
IF my_auth_code IS NULL THEN
SET acode = ((DATE_FORMAT(NOW(), "%y%m%d")) + 100000) * 10000 + 1;
ELSE
SET acode = my_auth_code + 1;
END IF;
RETURN acode;
END
I thought that single operation of
insert is atomic and table is locked
while transaction is in progress
Either table is locked (MyISAM is used) or records may be locked (InnoDB is used), not both.
Since you mentioned "transaction", I assume that InnoDB is in use.
One of InnoDB advantages is absence of table locks, so nothing will prevent many triggers' bodies to be executed simultaneously and produce the same result.