Row Level Locking in Mysql

前端 未结 2 1915
伪装坚强ぢ
伪装坚强ぢ 2021-02-15 14:59

I have 5 rows in a table (1 to 5). I want row 2 lock for some update and in the meanwhile if someone tries to update row 4, then he should able to update.

I am trying th

相关标签:
2条回答
  • 2021-02-15 15:33

    I found below option is more appropriate i generate 40000 numbers from concurrent session on the same time. I didnt found any duplicate number. Without below command i generate 10000 numbers and found 5 duplicate numbers.

    START TRANSACTION

    SELECT * FROM test WHERE t=1 FOR UPDATE;

    UPDATE test SET NAME='irfandd' WHERE t=2;

    COMMIT;

    0 讨论(0)
  • 2021-02-15 15:48

    Instead of FOR UPDATE use LOCK IN SHARE MODE. FOR UPDATE prevents other transactions to read the row as well. LOCK IN SHARE MODE allows read, but prevents updating.

    Reference: MySQL Manual

    ------ session 1

    START TRANSACTION;
    SELECT * FROM test WHERE t=1 LOCK IN SHARE MODE;
    UPDATE test SET NAME='irfandd' WHERE t=2;
    COMMIT;
    

    ----- session 2 (which is not being blocked anymore :) )

    START TRANSACTION;
    UPDATE test SET NAME='irfandd' WHERE t=4;
    COMMIT;
    

    Update:

    Realizing that the table has no index on t, I have the following explanation:

    First, transaction T1 locks the row 1 in SELECT * FROM test WHERE t=1 FOR UPDATE

    Next, transaction T2 tries to execute UPDATE test SET NAME='irfandd' WHERE t=4. To find out which row(s) are affected, it needs to scan all rows, including row 1. But that is locked, so T2 must wait until T1 finishes. If there is any kind of index, the WHERE t=4 can use the index to decide if row 1 contains t=4 or not, so no need to wait.

    Option 1: add an index on test.t so your update can use it.

    Option 2: use LOCK IN SHARE MODE, which is intended for putting a read lock only. Unfortunately this option creates a deadlock. Interestingly, T2 transaction executes (updating row 4), and T1 fails (updating row 2). It seems that T1 read-locks row 4 also, and since T2 modifies it, T1 fails because of the transaction isolation level (REPEATABLE READ by default). The final solution would be playing with Transaction Isolation Levels, using READ UNCOMMITTED or READ COMMITTED transaction levels.

    The simplest is Option 1, IMHO, but it's up to your possibilities.

    0 讨论(0)
提交回复
热议问题