![]() ![]() but at its core, it is just telling you that two queries needed the same two locks and couldn't resolve their differences. The range of information on the database objects in a deadlock graph is much deeper in terms of IDs, object names, index names, lock types, etc. Note the similarities in the deadlock graph to our examples above. The XML can then be opened via SQL Server Management Studio by clicking on it, which will then open the deadlock graph. You can run the following query to get a list of deadlock event XML and the time the deadlock occurred (Query and image taken from Microsoft's documentation).Įnter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode We'll talk more about how to deal with deadlocks later on, but next, let's look at how to get deadlock information from SQL Server. Meanwhile, the locks held by the query are released and Update User Skill Count is able to acquire the lock it needed and complete without any knowledge that anything happened. An exception propagated up to the caller informing it that the process was terminated due to deadlock. In this case, the Update PersonSkill query was chosen as the deadlock victim and terminated. In deadlock resolution, SQL Server will choose a victim at random (more on this later) and kill the process. Thankfully, SQL Server has a deadlock resolution mechanism to prevent processes from keeping the database busy waiting for something that will never happen. However, the Update User Skill Count is currently waiting for Update PersonSkill to complete and release its lock on PersonSkills so we now have a scenario where two queries each have something the other needs and will not release their locks until they complete. Ordinarily, the Update User Skill Count query would complete, release its lock and then the Update PersonSkill query could acquire its lock on People and complete its task. ![]() ![]() Unfortunately, the row in question in the People table is already exclusively locked by the Update User Skill Count query, creating a deadlock. In order to do this, the query needs a lock on the People table and a lock on a range of data in the PersonSkill table, which the query already has a lock for. In this scenario, we have a query that needs to update a People entry as well as a PersonSkill entry associated with that person and a skill. The error is then propagated to the executing code which can determine how to proceed. When this occurs, SQL Server must terminate one of the two processes, resulting in the query failing to execute and the transaction failing. This article discusses what deadlocks are, how to interpret deadlock graphs, and some options for handling deadlocks.Ī deadlock occurs when two processes are competing for multiple resources in a way that does not resolve itself. When you work with SQL Server long enough on a database with enough traffic, you're eventually going to encounter deadlocks. The process with the higher log usage is not chosen as the victim, because it would require more work to roll it back.This is a continuation of a series of articles I've written on SQL Server concepts. probably because of high log usage compared to the other processįor what it's worth, this is actually the opposite of how deadlock victims are normally chosen. That's all just speculation though based on my observations. It seems like there's something internal to the way deadlock victims are chosen that "knows" one of the operations is a maintenance task, and is hard-coded in some way to choose that as the victim over a non-maintenance user query. Preferably during some kind of maintenance window. ![]() The only solution I'm aware of is to avoid doing these operations (partition switching, altering partition functions, index maintenance) during times of heavy user activity. Is there a way to prevent a process with high deadlock priority from becoming a victim? In that case, I was able to reproduce the problem, having a process with the highest deadlock priority (10) chosen as the victim when deadlocked with a process with the lowest deadlock priority (-10). I've run into this before with maintenance operations - specifically index reorgs, as described on my blog here: Deadlock Victim Choice in SQL Server - An Exception? The process with high deadlock priority was chosen as a victim. Is this a defect introduced in SQL? Is there a way to prevent a process with high deadlock priority from becoming a victim? The process with high deadlock priority was chosen as a victim (probably because of high log usage compared to the other process). Here is a deadlock graph I noticed recently in my system. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |