I a have task to monitor queries on server and kill the queries which are locking other queries which I am doing from PHP code.
I want to know if this is possible and how this can be done.
I have searched existing questions on this topic but there was not any matching situation.
I am using show processlist to get list of queries.
I have checked the mysql site and found that "state" can be,
Locked - The query is locked by another query.
But how to get process id of the query which has locked this query, so later I can kill this query by this id.
The SHOW PROCESSLIST; and SELECT * FROM information_schema.PROCESSLIST; returns session's id number. You can use this value in KILL function, e.g. -
KILL CONNECTION 337;
KILL Syntax
Also, you can try KILL QUERY statement. From the documentation: KILL QUERY terminates the statement that the connection is currently executing, but leaves the connection itself intact.itself intact.
Related
Executing this query may cause deadlock ? If yes, then please explain how??
$q="UPDATE SET `count` =`count` + 1 WHERE user_id='$uid' FOR UPDATE";
It will not cause a deadlock. Even if a lot of queries try to update at the same time, they will either wait for the other query to finish the update. Or Mysql optimiser will run them simultaneously if different queries are updating different rows, given that you are using InnoDB engine. In MyISAM, there is only table-level locking so the queries will end up running sequentially even if they are run at the same time.
I do not see why there will be a deadlock with this query.
I have a system that handles many queries per second. I code my system with mysql and PHP.
My problem is mysqli transaction still commit the transaction even the record is deleted by other user at the same time , all my table are using InnoDB.
This is how I code my transaction with mysqli:
mysqli_autocommit($dbc,FALSE);
$all_query_ok=true;
$q="INSERT INTO Transaction() VALUES()";
mysqli_query ($dbc,$q)?null:$all_query_ok=false;
$q="INSERT INTO Statement() VALUES()";
mysqli_query ($dbc,$q)?null:$all_query_ok=false;
if($all_query_ok==true){
//all success
mysqli_commit($dbc);
}else{
//one of it failed , rollback everything.
mysqli_rollback($dbc);
}
Below are the query performed at the same time in other script by another user and then end up messing the expected system behaviour,
$q="DELETE FROM Transaction...";
mysqli_query ($dbc,$q)?null:$all_query_ok=false;
Please advice , did I implement the transaction wrongly? I have read about row-level locking and believe that innoDB does lock the record during a transaction
I don't know which kind of transactions you're talking about but with the mysqli extension I use the following methods to work with transactions:
mysqli::begin_transaction
mysqli::commit
mysqli::rollback
Then the process is like:
Starting a new transaction with mysqli::begin_transaction
Execute your SQL queries
On success use mysqli::commit to confirm changes done by your queries in step 2 OR on error during execution of your queries in step 2 use mysqli::rollback to revert changes done by them.
You can think of transactions like a temporary cache for your queries. It's someway similar to output caching in PHP with ob_* functions. As long as you didn't have flushed the cached data, nothing happens on screen. Same with transactions: as long as you didn't have commited anything (and autocommit is turned off) nothing happens in the database.
I did some research on row level locking which can lock record from delete or update
FOR UPDATE
Official Documentation
Right after the begin transaction I have to select those record I wanted to lock like below
SELECT * FROM Transaction WHERE id=1 FOR UPDATE
So that the record will be lock until transaction end.
This method doesn't work on MyISAM type table
Looks like a typical example of race condition. You execute two concurrent scripts modifying data in parallel. Probably your first script successfully inserts records and commits the transaction, and the second script successfully deletes records afterwards. I'm not sure what you mean by "the query performed at the same time in other script by other user" though.
You will have to do this this way:
mysqli_autocommit($dbc,FALSE);
$dbc->begin_transaction();
$all_query_ok=true;
$q="INSERT INTO Transaction() VALUES()";
mysqli_query ($dbc,$q)?null:$all_query_ok=false;
$q="INSERT INTO Statement() VALUES()";
mysqli_query ($dbc,$q)?null:$all_query_ok=false;
if($all_query_ok==true){
//all success
mysqli_commit($dbc);
}else{
//one of it failed , rollback everything.
mysqli_rollback($dbc);
}
you can use the object oriented or the procedural style when calling begin_transaction (I prefer the object oriented).
I have a question regarding MySQL commits and transactions. I have a couple of PHP statements that execute MySQL queries. Do I just say the following?
mysql_query("START TRANSACTION");
//more queries here
mysql_query("COMMIT");
What exactly would this do? How does it help? For updates, deletes and insertions I also found this to block other queries from reading:
mysql_query("LOCK TABLES t1 WRITE, t2 WRITE");
//more queries here
mysql_query("UNLOCK TABLES t1, t2");
Would this block other queries whatever nature or only writes/selects?
Another question: Say one query is running and blocks other queries. Another query tries to access blocked data - and it sees that it is blocked. How does it proceed? Does it wait until the data is unblocked again and re-execute the query? Does it just fail and needs to be repeated? If so, how can I check?
Thanks a lot!
Dennis
In InnoDB, you do not need to explicitly start or end transactions for single queries if you have not changed the default setting of autocommit, which is "on". If autocommit is on, InnoDB automatically encloses every single SQL query in a transaction, which is the equivalent of START TRANSACTION; query; COMMIT;.
If you explicitly use START TRANSACTION in InnoDB with autocommit on, then any queries executed after a START TRANSACTION statement will either all be executed, or all of them will fail. This is useful in banking environments, for example: if I am transferring $500 to your bank account, that operation should only succeed if the sum has been subtracted from my bank balance and added to yours. So in this case, you'd run something like
START TRANSACTION;
UPDATE customers SET balance = balance - 500 WHERE customer = 'Daan';
UPDATE customers SET balance = balance + 500 WHERE customer = 'Dennis';
COMMIT;
This ensures that either both queries will run successfully, or none, but not just one.
This post has some more on when you should use transactions.
In InnoDB, you will very rarely have to lock entire tables; InnoDB, unlike MyISAM, supports row-level locking. This means clients do not have to lock the entire table, forcing other clients to wait. Clients should only lock the rows they actually need, allowing other clients to continue accessing the rows they need.
You can read more about InnoDB transactions here. Your questions about deadlocking are answered in sections 14.2.8.8 and 14.2.8.9 of the docs. If a query fails, your MySQL driver will return an error message indicating the reason; your app should then reissue the queries if required.
Finally, in your example code, you used mysql_query. If you are writing new code, please stop using the old, slow, and deprecated mysql_ library for PHP and use mysqli_ or PDO instead :)
I'm currently using mysql_pconnect.
Is there a risk of erroneously retrieving the last id inserted?
Yes, there is a risk not only with last_insert_id but with transactions and other things.
mysql_pconnect isn't right thing for use it on production because many php instances will have access to a single connection
It seems, according to this note, that there might be a risk, when the insert query failed (quoting) :
be careful when using
last_insert_id() with persistent
connections - running
last_insert_id() after a failed
update/insert/etc will return the last
insert id of the last successful
update/insert made by that CONNECTION
rather than 0 for the number of rows
updated by the previous non-working
query
I'm trying to grasp the idea of transactions fully. Therefore the following question... (ofcourse newbie, so don't laugh :D )
I have set up a (simplified) transaction in PHP (using the PHP SQL driver from microsoft). I want to get the rows I'm going to delete for some extra processing later:
sqlsrv_begin_transaction($conn);
$sql = "SELECT * FROM test WITH (XLOCK) WHERE a<10";
$statement = sqlsrv_query($conn,$sql);
$sql = "DELETE FROM test WHERE a<10";
sqlsrv_query($conn,$sql);
$result = get_result_array($statement);
sqlsrv_commit($conn);
$result2 = get_result_array($statement);
1) I do get the expected result in $result but an empty array in $result2. Why?
I would expect only a result in $result2 because then the transaction has actually been executed. I guess the result in $result is a sort of 'temporary' result in memory and not actually a result from the actual database.
2) It could be that between the moment the transaction was started and the actual commit, an other query from another connection has changed the rows which match (a<10)? That means that the results I'm expecting according to $result will be different from the actual changes in the database.
Or is it that (a) the transaction occurres with an in-memory copy of the database (not affected by in-between queries from other connections), or (b) the locks obtained since the beginning of the transaction are already in action for other queries from other connections?
After typing this I'm expecting answer b....?
I'm not familiar with the sqlsrv driver, but if it works anything like most other PHP DB drivers, the result of the sqlsrv_query call is not a result set in some form of array, but a PHP resource (see http://www.php.net/manual/en/language.types.resource.php). Calling get_result_array still retrieves data from that resource, in this case the database, and it does so immediately. The COMMIT only affects writes to the database, not reads, so you see your result immediately in result1. After you commit your transaction (i.e, the DELETE), the next call correctly returns an empty result set.
I tested it out with some mysql tools (which i'm more familiar with):
1. When I start a transaction and do a 'select' of one particular record I directly get the result. Then from an other connection I delete the same record (with autocommit) it is gone for that connection but for the first connection the record is still there (I did the 'select' again without committing the transaction). Only after committing the transaction of the first connection and doing the 'select' again the record is gone.
2. When I do the same but acquire an exclusive lock for the first 'select' query then the delete query of the second connection waits until the transaction of the first connection has been committed.
Conclusion: In situation (1) for the second select query of the first connection, the database IS returning a result as it was at the moment of the start of the transaction... thus WITHOUT taking into account other (write) queries running AFTER the start of the transaction. Situation (2) is exactly the answer 2b from my original question. :)