Just a little side note, The table engine needs to be InnoDB or the transaction will not have effect, The behavior may differs also according to the isolation level, That will apply a lock on all records because no where is specified, which its not very common.
Regards, Claudio On Jun 16, 2011 8:05 AM, "Suresh Kuna" <sureshkumar...@gmail.com> wrote: > Try this out:-) > > Below are the steps to generate a deadlock so that the behaviour of a > deadlock can be illustrated: > > -- 1) Create Objects for Deadlock Example > USE TEMPDB > > CREATE TABLE dbo.foo (col1 INT) > INSERT dbo.foo SELECT 1 > > CREATE TABLE dbo.bar (col1 INT) > INSERT dbo.bar SELECT 1 > > -- 2) Run in first connection > BEGIN TRAN > UPDATE tempdb.dbo.foo SET col1 = 1 > > -- 3) Run in second connection > BEGIN TRAN > UPDATE tempdb.dbo.bar SET col1 = 1 > UPDATE tempdb.dbo.foo SET col1 = 1 > > -- 4) Run in first connection > UPDATE tempdb.dbo.bar SET col1 = 1 > > Connection two will be chosen as the deadlock victim > > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Adarsh Sharma <adarsh.sha...@orkash.com >wrote: > >> How we can create a deadlock manually to test this problem. >> >> Thanks >> >> >> Suresh Kuna wrote: >> >>> Good question Yogesh, I can say the best solution is >>> >>> Create a deadlock and test it, you will come to know more about it. >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Yogesh Kore <yogeshk...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Small doubt for wait_timeout. >>>> >>>> If my wait_timeout is set for 180 seconds and if any deadlock occures and >>>> both query are waiting to execute. What wil happen in that case? >>>> 1. Do the connection will wait till deadlock is removed or >>>> 2. Connection will close after 180 seconds as both queries are ideal and >>>> waiting for each other. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Yogesh >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > -- > Thanks > Suresh Kuna > MySQL DBA
