sujay
-Original Message-
From: Tony Leake [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 7:55 PM
To: Sujay Koduri
Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: RE: innodb locking
On Wed, 2005-10-05 at 07:12 -0700, Sujay Koduri wrote:
> Is this happening every time you try this, or it
Tony Leake wrote:
Hi,
I have a query:
UPDATE dbseXyzOrders.tblOrder SET intPoUid = 98 WHERE intOrderUid =
10798
intOrderUid is the primary key
There are 25 columns in the table and a further 8 of these have indexes
on them. The table is innodb
I have just tried to run the above query 3
I have ever meet this problem, however i never found best solutions.
Make sure that there're no other session that update the data with
AUTOCOMMIT=0
If there's another session with autocommi=0 and update the data, kill it
first so your session will not timeout lock
use SHOW INNODB STATUS to s
On Wed, 2005-10-05 at 07:12 -0700, Sujay Koduri wrote:
> Is this happening every time you try this, or it happened first time?
It's not every time but this is not the first. Mostly the query is ok,
but I would like to find out why it's happening.
> Also can you please tell what isolation level ar
Is this happening every time you try this, or it happened first time?
Yes you right that INNODB uses row level locks, and the only reason for that
error should be that someone else is trying to update the same row. As we
can see from the o/p of the show procee list, someone else is also trying to
Alex,
- Original Message -
From: ""Zeltser, Alex"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: mailing.database.myodbc
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 10:28 PM
Subject: RE: InnoDB locking 'non-existence' of a row
> Hello Heikki,
>
> Thank you for y
,
Alex Zeltser
List: MySQL General Discussion < Previous MessageNext Message >
From: Heikki Tuuri Date: January 21 2004 4:32am
Subject: Re: InnoDB locking 'non-existence' of a row
Alex,
diagram:
record1 'gap' record2
(User A holds a next-key
Hot Backup - a hot backup tool for InnoDB which also backs up MyISAM
tables
Order MySQL technical support from https://order.mysql.com/
- Original Message -
From: ""Zeltser, Alex"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: mailing.database.myodbc
Sent: Tuesday, January 20,
iginal Message-
From: Joe Shear [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 11:00 AM
To: Zeltser, Alex
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: InnoDB locking 'non-existence' of a row
hi,
Selecting a non-existent row won't acquire any locks that prevents inserts from
hap
re any way to make the second session block when both it and the first one are
> 'locking'
> non-existence of a row?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Alex
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris Nolan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, Janua
day, January 16, 2004 4:55 PM
To: Zeltser, Alex
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: InnoDB locking 'non-existence' of a row
Hi Alex!
On Sat, 2004-01-17 at 05:50, Zeltser, Alex wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I wanted to take advantage of the InnoDB 'gap' locking to lock
> '
Hi Alex!
On Sat, 2004-01-17 at 05:50, Zeltser, Alex wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I wanted to take advantage of the InnoDB 'gap' locking to lock 'non-existence' of a
> row, the way the
> manual recommends. I tried to do this by using 'select ... for update', using the
> 'mysql' client
> from two separate s
Estoy tomando el sol
.
q
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Estoy tomando el sol
.
q
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
m forwarding this to Sanja.
IMHO current behaviour is absolutly correct.
Mikhail.
- Original Message -
From: "Heikki Tuuri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 11:43 PM
Subject: Re: InnoDB locking: Different behavior on 3.23.55
Mikhail,
I just tested this. You are probably using the query cache in 4.0. Then
SELECT can return immediately without acquiring any locks.
Of course, it can be discussed if the query cache, too, should respect LOCK
TABLES. I am forwarding this to Sanja.
Thank you,
Heikki
- Original Messag
- Original Message -
From: "Jeremy Zawodny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Joe Shear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 5:27 PM
Subject: Re: InnoDB Locking Problems
> On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 02:38:03PM -0700,
yes, we are running at serializable, which also explains the locking
problems, especially since we just upgraded from .49.
thanks
joe
On Fri, 2002-08-09 at 15:27, Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 02:38:03PM -0700, Joe Shear wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > COMMIT
> > we are using the high
On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 02:38:03PM -0700, Joe Shear wrote:
[snip]
> COMMIT
> we are using the highest level of transactional security -- the term for
> it eludes me at the moment.
You mean the isolation level? Are you running at SERIALIZABLE rather
than READ-COMMITTED? IF so, why? You will h
19 matches
Mail list logo
