On Friday 13 May 2005 18:21, Gordon wrote:
If you can add a table structure why not create a SELECTED table with
REPORT ID and PERSON ID as the 2 field PRIMARY KEY.
Then you could INSERT IGNORE into this table [with no BEGN/COMMIT] and the
IGNORE would throw away those already selected.
hi,
i followed this thread and really think that this isn't a locking problem, but a
table structure problem.
if there is a column in table with a boolean flag (dealt yes/no) the queries go
just looking for rows where dealt=0 (or no).
Mathias
Selon Duncan Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Friday 13
Hi,
you're ooking for the opposite of what can be done. One can select in share mode
or for update :
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/innodb-locking-reads.html
this prevents data from being incoherent. If you want skip waiting for locks,
you can make for each user a temp table containing the
look also using READ UNCOMMITTED
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/innodb-transaction-isolation.html
Mathias
Selon [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi,
you're ooking for the opposite of what can be done. One can select in share
mode
or for update :
Hi Mathias,
Thanks a lot for your comments. In MS SQL we have something which can
achieve this very simply:
select Top 1 * from Table1 with (updlock,readpast)
I am looking for something exactly similar to this in MySQL. Creating temp
tables will not work for me as the no of users for the
Ramesh,
Thanks a lot for your comments. In MS SQL we have something which can
achieve this very simply:
select Top 1 * from Table1 with (updlock,readpast)
I am looking for something exactly similar to this in MySQL.
This actually is a work-around for that bloody MS SQL locking crap.
look also using READ UNCOMMITTED
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/innodb-transaction-isolation.html
Read UNCOMMITTED is an abomination and should be avoided.
With regards,
Martijn Tonies
Database Workbench - tool for InterBase, Firebird, MySQL, Oracle MS SQL
Server
Upscene Productions
Yes, that's what i said. He is trying to ovverride data consistency, and read
uncommitted is so possible. So why not use it if it solves the problem.
else, read uncommitted sould be droped from mysql.
But i agree with you
Mathias
Selon Martijn Tonies [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
look also using READ
Yes, that's what i said. He is trying to ovverride data consistency, and
read
uncommitted is so possible. So why not use it if it solves the problem.
else, read uncommitted sould be droped from mysql.
I don't think he is trying to override data consistency... with MS SQL,
read past wil
Yes. Martijn is correct.
I am trying to skip locked rows and get the next unlocked
row available. Reading uncommited data will cause unexpected
problems. I don't want to do that.
Is there a way to do this?
Regards
Ramesh
On Fri, 13 May 2005 11:54:11 +0200, Martijn Tonies [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes. Martijn is correct.
I am trying to skip locked rows and get the next unlocked
row available. Reading uncommited data will cause unexpected
problems. I don't want to do that.
Is there a way to do this?
Use InnoDB and you don't _have_ to skip past locked records :-)
With regards,
I am using InnoDB only.
But, it's not skipping locked rows.
regards
Ramesh
On Fri, 13 May 2005 12:11:12 +0200, Martijn Tonies [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Yes. Martijn is correct.
I am trying to skip locked rows and get the next unlocked
row available. Reading uncommited data will cause
On Friday 13 May 2005 11:34, Ramesh G typed:
I am using InnoDB only.
But, it's not skipping locked rows.
Ditto that here.
CREATE TABLE `a` (
`b` int(11) NOT NULL auto_increment,
PRIMARY KEY (`b`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1
select * from a;
+---+
| b |
+---+
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
I am using InnoDB only.
But, it's not skipping locked rows.
Ditto that here.
Actually, I consider that a good thing... What's the point in leaving
out rows that have not been modified yet but are about to be updated?
The transaction that has the rows locked might as well be rolled back.
I agree. It sounds like you could use plain repeatable read isolation
transactions. If someone else is modifying those rows you get an older
version from when your transaction was started. No need for skipping
anything.
Martijn Tonies wrote:
I am using InnoDB only.
But, it's not skipping
On Friday 13 May 2005 16:19, Eric Bergen typed:
I agree. It sounds like you could use plain repeatable read isolation
transactions. If someone else is modifying those rows you get an older
version from when your transaction was started. No need for skipping
anything.
In the case of what I'm
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 10:25 AM
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Re: Read past Equivalent in MySQL
On Friday 13 May 2005 16:19, Eric Bergen typed:
I agree. It sounds like you could use plain repeatable read isolation
transactions. If someone else is modifying those
Hi All,
Is there a way by which I can tell the Mysql to ignore the rows that are
locked by someone else and take the next available record. The problem is,
I have a Query like this:
Select * from Table1 where Fld1=2 FOR UPDATE Limit 1
I will have multiple clients running this same query with
18 matches
Mail list logo
