I want to lock some specific rows for update or delete or insert and rest rows of the tables should remain unlocked i.e. available for any transaction whether read or write . Is it possible in mysql if yes then please help me on this.
First, you have to use InnoDB engine, as MyISAM does not support row-level locks.
Next, if you perform update, MySQL will implicitly lock the scanned rows. But if you need explicit lock of the rows, you can use SELECT FOR UPDATE statement.
Related
When i run 'Select * from table' on an INNODB table, does the table get locked implicity? Does it mean that during the time MySQL takes to return the result set, i cannot issue an update statement on the table?
From what i have understood, the whole table would be locked in shared mode until the result set is returned from the server. Only then could the update command be executed.
InnoDB uses a feature called Multi-version concurrency control.
Locking in shared mode is not required, since MVCC will retain earlier versions of the row for your SELECT statement to be able to read if required.
So the answer is 'no', running a SELECT statement will not need to lock any rows while updating. That is, unless it is a special SELECT statement like SELECT .. FOR UPDATE.
My question is a follow up to this answer. I want to find out how to perform a select statement without locking a table with MyISAM engine.
The answer states the following if you have InnoDB but not MyISAM. What is the equivalent for MyISAM engine?
SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL READ UNCOMMITTED ;
SELECT * FROM TABLE_NAME ;
COMMIT ;
This is the default behaviour with MyISAM tables. If one actually wants to lock a MyISAM table, one must manually acquire a table-level lock. Transaction isolation level, START TRANSACTION, COMMIT, ROLLBACK have no effect on MyISAM tables behaviour since MyISAM does not support transactions.
More about internal locking mechanisms
A READ lock is implicitely acquired before, and released after execution of a SELECT statement. Notice that several concurrent, simultaneous, SELECT statements could be running at the same time, because several sessions may hold a READ lock on the same table.
Conversely, a WRITE lock is implicitely acquired before executing an INSERT or UPDATE or DELETE statement. This means that no read (let alone a concurrent write) can take place as long as a write is in progress*.
The above applies to MyISAM, MEMORY, and MERGE tables only.
You might want to read more about this here:
Internal locking methods
Read vs Write locks
* However, these locks are not always required thanks to this clever trick:
The MyISAM storage engine supports concurrent inserts to reduce contention between readers and writers for a given table: If a MyISAM table has no free blocks in the middle of the data file, rows are always inserted at the end of the data file. In this case, you can freely mix concurrent INSERT and SELECT statements for a MyISAM table without locks.
MyISAM does indeed use a read lock during SELECT. An INSERT at the end of the table can get around that.
But try doing an UPDATE, DELETE, or ALTER TABLE while a long-running SELECT is in progress. Or vice-versa, reading from a table while a change to that table is running. It's first-come, first-serve, and the later thread blocks until the first thread is done.
MyISAM doesn't have any support for transactions, so it must work this way. If a SELECT were reading rows from a table, and a concurrent thread changes some of those rows, you would get a race condition. The SELECT may read some of the rows before the change, and some of the rows after the change, resulting in a completely mixed-up view of the data.
Anything you do with SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL has no effect with MyISAM.
For these reasons, it's recommended to use InnoDB instead.
I have a mysql lock question:
If I query this sql: select * from user order by id asc limit 0,1000.
Then anohther thread simutanousely delete the row between 0,1000 in the user table,if allowed?
In the MySQL Documentation for InnoDB, it states InnoDB does locking on the row level and runs queries as nonlocking consistent reads by default.
More directly, however is Internal Locking Methods, which says MySQL uses table-level locking for MyISAM, MEMORY, and MERGE tables, allowing only one session to update those tables at a time. Also, this:
MySQL grants table write locks as follows:
1. If there are no locks on the table, put a write lock on it.
2. Otherwise, put the lock request in the write lock queue.
MySQL grants table read locks as follows:
1. If there are no write locks on the table, put a read lock on it.
2. Otherwise, put the lock request in the read lock queue.
Okay, let's digest that: In InnoDB, each row has it's own lock, which means your query would loop through the table until it hit a row that has a lock. However, in MyISAM, there is only one lock for the entire table, which is set before the query is executed.
In other words, for InnoDB, if the DELETE operation removed the row before the SELECT operation read the row, then the row would not show up in the results. However, if the SELECT operation read the row first, then it would be returned in the result set, but any future SELECT operations would not show the row. If you want to intentionally lock the entire result set in InnoDB, look into SELECT ... FOR UPDATE.
In MyISAM, the table is locked by default, so it depends which query began execution first: if the DELETE operation started first, then the row would not be returned with the SELECT. But if the SELECT operation began execution first, then the row would indeed be returned.
There is more about interlaced here: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/select.html
And also here: Any way to select without causing locking in MySQL?
In MySQL+InnoDB, suppose I have a single table, and two threads which both do "SELECT ... FOR UPDATE". Suppose that both of the SELECT statements end up selecting multiple rows, e.g. both of them end up selecting rows R42 and R99. Is it possible that this will deadlock?
I'm thinking of this situation: the first thread tries to lock R42 then R99, the second thread tries to lock R99 then R42. If I'm unlucky, the two threads will deadlock.
I read in the MySQL Glossary for "deadlock" that
A deadlock can occur when the transactions lock rows in multiple tables (through statements such as UPDATE or SELECT ... FOR UPDATE), but in the opposite order. ...
To reduce the possibility of deadlocks, ... create indexes on the columns used in SELECT ... FOR UPDATE and UPDATE ... WHERE statements.
This hints that in my situation (single table) I won't deadlock, maybe because MySQL automatically tries to lock rows in the order of the primary key, but I want to be certain, and I can't find the proper place in the documentation that tells me exactly what's going on.
From MySQL documentation
InnoDB uses automatic row-level locking. You can get deadlocks even in the case of
transactions that just insert or delete a single row. That is because these operations
are not really “atomic”; they automatically set locks on the (possibly several) index
records of the row inserted or deleted.
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/innodb-deadlocks.html
So generally, deadlocking is not fatal, you just need to try again, or add the appropriate indexes so that fewer rows are scanned and thus fewer rows are locked.
I want to add explicit lock on row which is currently being updated and I also want to remove the same lock explicitly, after updating that row in mysql.
I know there is inbuilt locking system of mysql but I want add it explicitly as well.
You could of course issue a
SELECT .. FOR UPDATE
statement before the actual update. To release the lock again, commit the transaction. Read about locking reads here. But according to that documentation, that would do the same as simply issuing the UPDATE statement itself:
A SELECT ... FOR UPDATE reads the latest available data, setting exclusive locks on each row it reads. Thus, it sets the same locks a searched SQL UPDATE would set on the rows.