Many hyperlinks are disabled.
Use anonymous login to enable hyperlinks.
|Comment:||Add new documentation file begin_concurrent.md.|
|Downloads:||Tarball | ZIP archive | SQL archive|
|Timelines:||family | ancestors | descendants | both | begin-concurrent|
|Files:||files | file ages | folders|
|User & Date:||dan 2019-01-11 15:06:39|
|15:22||Merge documentation changes from branch "begin-concurrent" into this branch. Leaf check-in: 41e742bd user: dan tags: begin-concurrent-wal2|
|15:06||Add new documentation file begin_concurrent.md. Leaf check-in: fdbf97e6 user: dan tags: begin-concurrent|
|16:08||Merge latest trunk changes into this branch. check-in: 5bf212f1 user: dan tags: begin-concurrent|
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107
Begin Concurrent ================ ## Overview Usually, SQLite allows at most one writer to proceed concurrently. The BEGIN CONCURRENT enhancement allows multiple writers to process write transactions simultanously if the database is in "wal" or "wal2" mode, although the system still serializes COMMIT commands. When a write-transaction is opened with "BEGIN CONCURRENT", actually locking the database is deferred until a COMMIT is executed. This means that any number of transactions started with BEGIN CONCURRENT may proceed concurrently. The system uses optimistic page-level-locking to prevent conflicting concurrent transactions from being committed. When a BEGIN CONCURRENT transaction is committed, the system checks whether or not any of the database pages that the transaction has read have been modified since the BEGIN CONCURRENT was opened. In other words - it asks if the transaction being committed operates on a different set of data than all other concurrently executing transactions. If the answer is "yes, this transaction did not read or modify any data modified by any concurrent transaction", then the transaction is committed as normal. Otherwise, if the transaction does conflict, it cannot be committed and an SQLITE_BUSY_SNAPSHOT error is returned. At this point, all the client can do is ROLLBACK the transaction. If SQLITE_BUSY_SNAPSHOT is returned, messages are output via the sqlite3_log mechanism indicating the page and table or index on which the conflict occurred. This can be useful when optimizing concurrency. ## Application Programming Notes In order to serialize COMMIT processing, SQLite takes a lock on the database as part of each COMMIT command and releases it before returning. At most one writer may hold this lock at any one time. If a writer cannot obtain the lock, it uses SQLite's busy-handler to pause and retry for a while: <a href=https://www.sqlite.org/c3ref/busy_handler.html> https://www.sqlite.org/c3ref/busy_handler.html </a> If there is significant contention for the writer lock, this mechanism can be inefficient. In this case it is better for the application to use a mutex or some other mechanism that supports blocking to ensure that at most one writer is attempting to COMMIT a BEGIN CONCURRENT transaction at a time. This is usually easier if all writers are part of the same operating system process. If all database clients (readers and writers) are located in the same OS process, and if that OS is a Unix variant, then it can be more efficient to the built-in VFS "unix-excl" instead of the default "unix". This is because it uses more efficient locking primitives. The key to maximizing concurrency using BEGIN CONCURRENT is to ensure that there are a large number of non-conflicting transactions. In SQLite, each table and each index is stored as a separate b-tree, each of which is distributed over a discrete set of database pages. This means that: * Two transactions that write to different sets of tables never conflict, and that * Two transactions that write to the same tables or indexes only conflict if the values of the keys (either primary keys or indexed rows) are fairly close together. For example, given a large table with the schema: <pre> CREATE TABLE t1(a INTEGER PRIMARY KEY, b BLOB);</pre> writing two rows with adjacent values for "a" probably will cause a conflict (as the two keys are stored on the same page), but writing two rows with vastly different values for "a" will not (as the keys will likly be stored on different pages). Note that, in SQLite, if values are not explicitly supplied for an INTEGER PRIMARY KEY, as for example in: > INSERT INTO t1(b) VALUES(<blob-value>); then monotonically increasing values are assigned automatically. This is terrible for concurrency, as it all but ensures that all new rows are added to the same database page. In such situations, it is better to explicitly assign random values to INTEGER PRIMARY KEY fields. This problem also comes up for non-WITHOUT ROWID tables that do not have an explicit INTEGER PRIMARY KEY column. In these cases each table has an implicit INTEGER PRIMARY KEY column that is assigned increasing values, leading to the same problem as omitting to assign a value to an explicit INTEGER PRIMARY KEY column. For both explicit and implicit INTEGER PRIMARY KEYs, it is possible to have SQLite assign values at random (instead of the monotonically increasing values) by writing a row with a rowid equal to the largest possible signed 64-bit integer to the table. For example: INSERT INTO t1(a) VALUES(9223372036854775807); Applications should take care not to malfunction due to the presence of such rows. The nature of some types of indexes, for example indexes on timestamp fields, can also cause problems (as concurrent transactions may assign similar timestamps that will be stored on the same db page to new records). In these cases the database schema may need to be rethought to increase the concurrency provided by page-level-locking.