Hi am confused with sql servers session. What does it actually mean? Does it keep track of the client like httpSession? I have read some documents on query life cycle. None talks about the sesion. Most of the documents say that after the query is recived by the server it gets parsed and then maintains a syntax tree and then execution plan and then executes the query and then a dispatch palan and then dispatches the resultset to the client who issued the query on the server. In the whole story where does the session on sql server like mysql server fits in and what actually it does? or There is no session concept on Mysql server(any sql server)? am i in wrong imagination?
A session in this context usually just refers to a single client connection.
The client connects to the DB server and authenticates; this is the start of the session.
When the client disconnects (gracefully or not) the session ends.
This is relevant for things like temporary tables or transactions: Un-committed transactions will be rolled back by the DBMS and all temporary tables created through this connection (=session) are discarded when the client disconnects, i.e. when the session ends.
Note that a client does not necessarily actively end a session or connection. The client may crash, or the network connection may break, or the server may shut down &c. Any of this implicitly terminates the session.
Problems may arise when a (client) application uses a connection pool keeping connections (and sessions) open and handing them out transparently to different application components. When not handled correctly, errors may occur because a given session may already be 'spoiled' by a previous operation. If, for example, one routine on the client creates a temporary table named 'X' and fails to explicitly drop it afterwards, the next routine that 'inherits' this session may encounter an error when trying to create another temporary table of that name, because it already exists in this specific session; which couldn't be the case if the connection/session was freshly created.
"Session" is mainly a generic term. You connect to a server (MySQL, Oracle, FTP, IRC... whatever), you do your stuff and finally disconnect when you're done. That has been a session.
HTTP is a particular case. It's a stateless protocol: if you spend an hour reading a web site, you don't remain connected for a whole hour. You make a quick connection, fetch an item at a time (an HTML document, a style sheet, a picture...) and close the connection. (Internals are actually more complex but that's the general idea.) When you ask for a second page, the server doesn't know who you are: that makes it impossible to keep track of your whole browsing session at protocol level. Thus HTTP sessions were invented: they're a way to emulate physical sessions.
The MySQL session starts when you open a connection to the server. A connection ID is assigned which can be read via the SELECT CONNECTION_ID() statement. The session is terminated when the connection is closed or, in case of persistent connections, after a certain timeout or when the server shuts down.
Related
So this is more of a generic question but an important one for me and perhaps future googlers.
Since one can create one connection and keep it alive as long as whatever process is connected to it is alive too, and librarys can keep it healthy (upon failing etc) why would one use a pool.
I can not understand where the performance enhancement comes into to play.
The querys are just getting queued the same way they would with one connection.
There is no 'parallel' processing.
Also assuming the process and the DB are in the same server there is no time lost sending the request over the network. In addition no time is lost connecting, and ending the connection with either option.
I can only see the demerits such as making sure the data selected are not currently getting updated by another connection, thus receiving old data etc.
I wanted to boost the performance of my MySQL DB and make it more scalable as I stumbled upon the pool vs 1 permanent connection argument without being sure if I should change or not.
I'm trying to understand whether it is possible to achieve the following:
I have multiple instances of an application server running behind a round-robin load balancer. The client expects GET after POST/PUT semantics, in particular the client will make a POST request, wait for the response and immediately make a GET request expecting the response to reflect the change made by the POST request, e.g:
> Request: POST /some/endpoint
< Response: 201 CREATED
< Location: /some/endpoint/123
> Request: GET /some/endpoint/123
< Response must not be 404 Not Found
It is not guaranteed that both requests are handled by the same application server. Each application server has a pool of connections to the DB. Each request will commit a transaction before responding to the client.
Thus the database will on one connection see an INSERT statement, followed by a COMMIT. One another connection, it will see a SELECT statement. Temporally, the SELECT will be strictly after the commit, however there may only be a tiny delay in the order of milliseconds.
The application server I have in mind uses Java, Spring, and Hibernate. The database is MySQL 5.7.11 managed by Amazon RDS in a multiple availability zone setup.
I'm trying to understand whether this behavior can be achieved and how so. There is a similar question, but the answer suggesting to lock the table does not seem right for an application that must handle concurrent requests.
Under ordinary circumstances, you will not have any issue with this sequence of requests, since your MySQL will have committed the changes to the database by the time the 201 response has been sent back. Therefore, any subsequent statements will see the created / updated record.
What could be the extraordinary circumstances under which the subsequent select will not find the updated / inserted record?
Another process commits an update or delete statement that changes or removes the given record. There is not too much you can do about this, since it is part of the normal operation. If you do not want such thing to happen, then you have to implement application level locking of data.
The subsequent GET request is routed not only to a different application server, but that one uses (or is forced to use) a different database instance, which does not have the most updated state of that record. I would envisage this to happen if either application or database server level there is a severe failure, or routing of the request goes really bad (routed to a data center at a different geographical location). These should not happen too frequently.
If you're using MyISAM tables, you might be seeing the effects of 'concurrent inserts' (see 8.11.3 in the mysql manual). You can avoid them by either setting the concurrent_insert system variable to 0, or by using the HIGH_PRIORITY keyword on the INSERT.
Assuming I'll execute every 2 seconds a query, should I open the connection on every request or should I keep the connection alive until the application(server) stops?
In my experience, establishing connections is unlikely to be a bottleneck for a mysql server (connection overhead is fairly low in mysql). That having been said, reusing existing connections is often an appropriate approach, but it requires some careful considerations: if the database server is temporarily unavailable, the code must reconnect; if the server is replaced, it must reconnect (mysql implementations tend towards failover solutions rather than true high availability); if the application uses multiple connections to mysql, you must be sure not to cross your connections between users or sessions (active database, timezone, charset, and so on are sessions variables, essentially tied to a connection). If you're not up to the task of making your reusable connection reliable in these and other edge cases, creating a new connection every 2 seconds may provide this durability for free.
In short, there can be less-than-obvious benefits to short lived connections. I would not bother to add intelligence around maintaining a persistent connection unless you have reason to believe it will actually make a meaningful difference in your case (eg benchmarks).
I'm doing my first foray with mysql and I have a doubt about how to handle the connection(s) my applications has.
What I am doing now is opening a connection and keeping it alive until I terminate my program. I do a mysql_ping() every now and then and the connection is started with MYSQL_OPT_RECONNECT.
The other option (I can think of), would be to start a new connection before doing anything that requires my connection to the database and closing it after I'm done with it.
What are the pros and cons of these two approaches?
what are the "side effects" of a long connection?
What is the most used method of handling this?
Cheers ;)
Some extra details
At this point I am keeping the connection alive and I ping it every now and again to now it's status and reconnect if needed.
In spite of this, when there is some consistent concurrency with queries happening in quick succession, I get a "Server has gone away" message and after a while the connection is re-established.
I'm left wondering if this is a side effect of a prolonged connection or if this is just a case of bad mysql server configuration.
Any ideas?
In general there is quite some amount of overhead incurred when opening a connection. Depending on how often you expect this to happen it might be ok, but if you are writing any kind of application that executes more than just a very few commands per program run, I would recommend a connection pool (for server type apps) or at least a single or very few connections from your standalone app to be kept open for some time and reused for multiple transactions.
That way you have better control over how many connections get opened at the application level, even before the database server gets involved. This is a service an application server offers you, but it can also be rolled up rather easily if you want to keep it smaller.
Apart from performance reasons a pool is also a good idea to be prepared for peaks in demand. When a lot of requests come in and each of them tries to open a separate connection to the database - or as you suggested even more (per transaction) - you are quickly going to run out of resources. Keep in mind that every connection consumes memory inside MySQL!
Also you want to make sure to use a non-root user to connect, because if you don't (I think it is tied to the MySQL SUPER privilege), you might find yourself locked out. MySQL reserves at least one connection for an administrator for problem fixing, but if your app connects with that privilege, all connections would already be used up when you try to put out the fire manually.
Unless you are worried about having too many connections open (i.e. over 1,000), you she leave the connection open. There is overhead in connecting/reconnecting that will only slow things down. If you know you are going to need the connection to stay open for a while, run this query instead of pinging periodically:
SET SESSION wait_timeout=#
Where # is the number of seconds to leave an idle connection open.
What kind of application are you writing? If it's a webscript: keep it open. If it's an executable, pool your connections (if necessary, most of the times a singleton will do).
I've been thinking, why does Apache start a new connection to the MySQL server for each page request? Why doesn't it just keep ONE connection open at all times and send all sql queries through that one connection (obviously with client id attached to each req)?
It cuts down on the handshake time overhead, and a couple of other advantages that I see.
It's like plugging in a computer every time you want to use it. Why go to the outlet each time when you can just leave it plugged in?
MySQL does not support multiple sessions over a single connection.
Oracle, for instance, allows this, and you can setup Apache to mutliplex several logical sessions over a single TCP connection.
This is limitation of MySQL, not Apache or script languages.
There are modules that can do session pooling:
Precreate a number of connections
Pick a free connection on demand
Create additional connections if not free connection is available.
the reason is: it's simpler.
to re-use connections, you have to invent and implement connection pooling. this adds another almost-layer of code that has to be developed, maintained, etc.
plus pooled connections invite a whole other class of bugs that you have to watch out for while developing your application. for example, if you define a user variable but the next user of that connection goes down a code path that branches based on the existence of that variable or not then that user runs the wrong code. other problems include: temporary tables, transaction deadlocks, session variables, etc. all of these become very hard to duplicate because it depends on the subsequent actions of two different users that appear to have no ties to each other.
besides, the connection overhead on a mysql connection is tiny. in my experience, connection pooling does increase the number of users a server can support by very much.
Because that's the purpose of the mod_dbd module.