I have two systems setup with SQL Server 2000 + Analysis Services. Both servers have been patched with both SP3a patches.
I wrote a trivial command line app that tests connection strings through ADO.
On each system, I can connect locally perfectly using the connection string:
"Provider=MSOLAP;Data Source=localhost;Initial Catalog=FoodMart 2000"
However, once I change "Data Source" to refer to the other system, the call to ADODB.Connection.Open throws a "System.Runtime.InteropServices.COMException" with message: "Unspecified error". (The simple app is written in C# and talks to ADO through Interop)
I've tried referencing ADO 2.1, ADO 2.5 and ADO 2.7
I've tried a "Provider" of "MSOLAP.2" as well as just "MSOLAP"
I've also tried a variety of different connection strings with many different permissions settings.
It is very frustrating to get an absolutely generic error message.
Any ideas?
Thanks in advance!Have you tried adding "User ID=xxx;Password=xxx"
or
"Integrated Security=SSPI"|||Yes, just retried all of them and they all result in the same System.Runtime.InteropServices.COMException, "Unspecified error"
adomdtest "Provider=MSOLAP;Data Source=localhost;Initial Catalog=FoodMart 2000"
adomdtest "Provider=MSOLAP;Data Source=192.168.128.53;Initial Catalog=FoodMart 2000"
adomdtest "Provider=MSOLAP;Data Source=192.168.128.53;Integrated Security=SSPI;Initial Catalog=FoodMart 2000"
adomdtest "Provider=MSOLAP;Data Source=192.168.128.53;User Id=sa;Password=xxxx;Initial Catalog=FoodMart 2000"|||Let me reclarify. This one works fine:
adomdtest "Provider=MSOLAP;Data Source=localhost;Initial Catalog=FoodMart 2000"
These (that reference another system) fail with System.Runtime.InteropServices.COMException, "Unspecified error":
adomdtest "Provider=MSOLAP;Data Source=192.168.128.53;Initial Catalog=FoodMart 2000"
adomdtest "Provider=MSOLAP;Data Source=192.168.128.53;Integrated Security=SSPI;Initial Catalog=FoodMart 2000"
adomdtest "Provider=MSOLAP;Data Source=192.168.128.53;User Id=sa;Password=xxxx;Initial Catalog=FoodMart 2000"
I experience the same effect from two systems; either system can open its own database but can't open a remote one.|||Can't think of anything here...Maybe these links can give you some ideas?
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/trblsql/agtroubleshoot_8wfm.asp
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/trblsql/agtroubleshoot_64fb.asp
Showing posts with label sp3a. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sp3a. Show all posts
Friday, March 30, 2012
Okay to install sp3a over sp3?
We intended to install sp3a but ended up installing sp3 by mistake. According to the web site, if you have installed sp3, "you don't need to install sp3a," but my question is would there be any harm in doing so? We know that an issue we're having is fix
ed in sp3a and we don't want to pull individual hotfixes.
>> We know that an issue we're having is fixed in sp3a and we don't want to
pull individual hotfixes.
Which issue is that? AFAIK, there were no changes to the database engine
itself between sp3 and sp3a. The changes were in the setup program, MDAC
and net libraries.
A
|||It's an issue with performance on a few ERP applications. We believe it is due to MDAC 2.7 and will be fixed with MDAC 2.71a, as other ERP customers have posted along those lines. Would it make more sense/be possible simply to upgrade MDAC instead of th
e SQL service pack? Or, as per my original question, will there be any problem with just upgrading to sp3a?
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
> pull individual hotfixes.
> Which issue is that? AFAIK, there were no changes to the database engine
> itself between sp3 and sp3a. The changes were in the setup program, MDAC
> and net libraries.
> A
>
>
|||> Would it make more sense/be possible simply to upgrade MDAC instead of the
SQL service pack?
Yes!
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)
|||Okay. But...
If we still experience the issue, is it okay to go from sp3
to sp3a?
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
> SQL service pack?
> Yes!
> --
> http://www.aspfaq.com/
> (Reverse address to reply.)
>
>
|||You're more than welcome to, but I really don't think that's going to solve
any performance issues.
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)
"smaas@.newsgroups.nospam" <smaasnewsgroupsnospam@.discussions.microsoft.com >
wrote in message news:265021CB-C08C-4054-B0CE-B5E53FA58F1C@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Okay. But... If we still experience the issue, is it okay to go from
> sp3
> to sp3a?
> "Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
sql
ed in sp3a and we don't want to pull individual hotfixes.
>> We know that an issue we're having is fixed in sp3a and we don't want to
pull individual hotfixes.
Which issue is that? AFAIK, there were no changes to the database engine
itself between sp3 and sp3a. The changes were in the setup program, MDAC
and net libraries.
A
|||It's an issue with performance on a few ERP applications. We believe it is due to MDAC 2.7 and will be fixed with MDAC 2.71a, as other ERP customers have posted along those lines. Would it make more sense/be possible simply to upgrade MDAC instead of th
e SQL service pack? Or, as per my original question, will there be any problem with just upgrading to sp3a?
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
> pull individual hotfixes.
> Which issue is that? AFAIK, there were no changes to the database engine
> itself between sp3 and sp3a. The changes were in the setup program, MDAC
> and net libraries.
> A
>
>
|||> Would it make more sense/be possible simply to upgrade MDAC instead of the
SQL service pack?
Yes!
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)
|||Okay. But...
If we still experience the issue, is it okay to go from sp3to sp3a?
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
> SQL service pack?
> Yes!
> --
> http://www.aspfaq.com/
> (Reverse address to reply.)
>
>
|||You're more than welcome to, but I really don't think that's going to solve
any performance issues.
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)
"smaas@.newsgroups.nospam" <smaasnewsgroupsnospam@.discussions.microsoft.com >
wrote in message news:265021CB-C08C-4054-B0CE-B5E53FA58F1C@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Okay. But...
If we still experience the issue, is it okay to go from> sp3
> to sp3a?
> "Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
sql
Okay to install sp3a over sp3?
We intended to install sp3a but ended up installing sp3 by mistake. Accordi
ng to the web site, if you have installed sp3, "you don't need to install sp
3a," but my question is would there be any harm in doing so? We know that a
n issue we're having is fix
ed in sp3a and we don't want to pull individual hotfixes.>> We know that an issue we're having is fixed in sp3a and we don't want to
pull individual hotfixes.
Which issue is that? AFAIK, there were no changes to the database engine
itself between sp3 and sp3a. The changes were in the setup program, MDAC
and net libraries.
A|||It's an issue with performance on a few ERP applications. We believe it is
due to MDAC 2.7 and will be fixed with MDAC 2.71a, as other ERP customers ha
ve posted along those lines. Would it make more sense/be possible simply to
upgrade MDAC instead of th
e SQL service pack? Or, as per my original question, will there be any prob
lem with just upgrading to sp3a?
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
> pull individual hotfixes.
> Which issue is that? AFAIK, there were no changes to the database engine
> itself between sp3 and sp3a. The changes were in the setup program, MDAC
> and net libraries.
> A
>
>|||> Would it make more sense/be possible simply to upgrade MDAC instead of the
SQL service pack?
Yes!
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)|||Okay. But... If we still experience the issue, is it okay to go from sp
3
to sp3a?
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
> SQL service pack?
> Yes!
> --
> http://www.aspfaq.com/
> (Reverse address to reply.)
>
>|||You're more than welcome to, but I really don't think that's going to solve
any performance issues.
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)
"smaas@.newsgroups.nospam" <smaasnewsgroupsnospam@.discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote in message news:265021CB-C08C-4054-B0CE-B5E53FA58F1C@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Okay. But... If we still experience the issue, is it okay to go from
> sp3
> to sp3a?
> "Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
>
ng to the web site, if you have installed sp3, "you don't need to install sp
3a," but my question is would there be any harm in doing so? We know that a
n issue we're having is fix
ed in sp3a and we don't want to pull individual hotfixes.>> We know that an issue we're having is fixed in sp3a and we don't want to
pull individual hotfixes.
Which issue is that? AFAIK, there were no changes to the database engine
itself between sp3 and sp3a. The changes were in the setup program, MDAC
and net libraries.
A|||It's an issue with performance on a few ERP applications. We believe it is
due to MDAC 2.7 and will be fixed with MDAC 2.71a, as other ERP customers ha
ve posted along those lines. Would it make more sense/be possible simply to
upgrade MDAC instead of th
e SQL service pack? Or, as per my original question, will there be any prob
lem with just upgrading to sp3a?
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
> pull individual hotfixes.
> Which issue is that? AFAIK, there were no changes to the database engine
> itself between sp3 and sp3a. The changes were in the setup program, MDAC
> and net libraries.
> A
>
>|||> Would it make more sense/be possible simply to upgrade MDAC instead of the
SQL service pack?
Yes!
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)|||Okay. But...
If we still experience the issue, is it okay to go from sp3
to sp3a?
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
> SQL service pack?
> Yes!
> --
> http://www.aspfaq.com/
> (Reverse address to reply.)
>
>|||You're more than welcome to, but I really don't think that's going to solve
any performance issues.
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)
"smaas@.newsgroups.nospam" <smaasnewsgroupsnospam@.discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote in message news:265021CB-C08C-4054-B0CE-B5E53FA58F1C@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Okay. But...
If we still experience the issue, is it okay to go from> sp3
> to sp3a?
> "Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
>
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
odd deadlocking behaviour
I am running SQL Server 2000 SP3a on a single processor computer and:
I have a table with the following columns
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS] (
[JOB_NO] [int] NOT NULL ,
[OVERRIDDEN_PERIOD_START] [datetime] NULL ,
[OVERRIDDEN_PERIOD_END] [datetime] NULL
) ON [PRIMARY]
GO
That has the following data:
1,06/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
2,NULL,13/01/2003 08:00:00
2,13/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
3,NULL,20/01/2003 08:00:00
3,20/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
4,NULL, 27/01/2003 08:00:00
4,27/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
If I now try deleting these rows from two database sessions in the order as
seen below I end up with a deadlock:
Firstly on SPID 56:
set implicit_transactions on
delete from SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS where job_no = 2
Secondly on SPID 57:
set implicit_transactions on
delete from SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS where job_no = 1
... This then blocks ? Which I am not sure about.
Thirdly back on SPID 56:
delete from SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS where job_no = 6
Creates a deadlock victimising SPID 57.
I accept that this table does not have a primary key but when I add one it
still deadlocks.
Why, on step 2, does SPID 57 lock when I delete the row where job_no = 1?
Why does a deadlock occur when SPID 56 subsequently deletes the row where
job_no is 6 i.e. no rows?
When I looked at sp_lock output it appeared that both sessions were waiting
on the same RID, does this mean that a RID is not necessarily 1 database
table row?
Thanks- What kind of lock triggered the deadlock? row, index, page, extent, table,
database
- Do you have an index by "job_no"?
AMB
"Tony Jones" wrote:
> I am running SQL Server 2000 SP3a on a single processor computer and:
> I have a table with the following columns
> CREATE TABLE [dbo].[SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS] (
> [JOB_NO] [int] NOT NULL ,
> [OVERRIDDEN_PERIOD_START] [datetime] NULL ,
> [OVERRIDDEN_PERIOD_END] [datetime] NULL
> ) ON [PRIMARY]
> GO
> That has the following data:
> 1,06/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
> 2,NULL,13/01/2003 08:00:00
> 2,13/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
> 3,NULL,20/01/2003 08:00:00
> 3,20/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
> 4,NULL, 27/01/2003 08:00:00
> 4,27/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
> If I now try deleting these rows from two database sessions in the order a
s
> seen below I end up with a deadlock:
> Firstly on SPID 56:
> set implicit_transactions on
> delete from SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS where job_no = 2
> Secondly on SPID 57:
> set implicit_transactions on
> delete from SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS where job_no = 1
> ... This then blocks ? Which I am not sure about.
> Thirdly back on SPID 56:
> delete from SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS where job_no = 6
> Creates a deadlock victimising SPID 57.
> I accept that this table does not have a primary key but when I add one it
> still deadlocks.
> Why, on step 2, does SPID 57 lock when I delete the row where job_no = 1?
> Why does a deadlock occur when SPID 56 subsequently deletes the row where
> job_no is 6 i.e. no rows?
> When I looked at sp_lock output it appeared that both sessions were waitin
g
> on the same RID, does this mean that a RID is not necessarily 1 database
> table row?
> Thanks|||Turn on trace flag 1204 and -1. Then your answers will be in the errorlog.
"Alejandro Mesa" <AlejandroMesa@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5E921D65-22E3-40D0-AE4C-BEBF76DF8FC7@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
>- What kind of lock triggered the deadlock? row, index, page, extent,
>table,
> database
> - Do you have an index by "job_no"?
> AMB
> "Tony Jones" wrote:
>|||The blocked SPID 57 is waiting on a RID (so a row lock) both SPIDs are
waiting on the same rid i.e. the same fileid:pageid:slot, hence the question
is the RID locking more than one row?
No I have not had a index on job_no I have tried a primary kry on a new
column defined to be the Identity column. This produced the same deadlock
behaviour.
"Alejandro Mesa" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> - What kind of lock triggered the deadlock? row, index, page, extent, tabl
e,
> database
> - Do you have an index by "job_no"?
> AMB
> "Tony Jones" wrote:
>
I have a table with the following columns
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS] (
[JOB_NO] [int] NOT NULL ,
[OVERRIDDEN_PERIOD_START] [datetime] NULL ,
[OVERRIDDEN_PERIOD_END] [datetime] NULL
) ON [PRIMARY]
GO
That has the following data:
1,06/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
2,NULL,13/01/2003 08:00:00
2,13/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
3,NULL,20/01/2003 08:00:00
3,20/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
4,NULL, 27/01/2003 08:00:00
4,27/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
If I now try deleting these rows from two database sessions in the order as
seen below I end up with a deadlock:
Firstly on SPID 56:
set implicit_transactions on
delete from SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS where job_no = 2
Secondly on SPID 57:
set implicit_transactions on
delete from SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS where job_no = 1
... This then blocks ? Which I am not sure about.
Thirdly back on SPID 56:
delete from SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS where job_no = 6
Creates a deadlock victimising SPID 57.
I accept that this table does not have a primary key but when I add one it
still deadlocks.
Why, on step 2, does SPID 57 lock when I delete the row where job_no = 1?
Why does a deadlock occur when SPID 56 subsequently deletes the row where
job_no is 6 i.e. no rows?
When I looked at sp_lock output it appeared that both sessions were waiting
on the same RID, does this mean that a RID is not necessarily 1 database
table row?
Thanks- What kind of lock triggered the deadlock? row, index, page, extent, table,
database
- Do you have an index by "job_no"?
AMB
"Tony Jones" wrote:
> I am running SQL Server 2000 SP3a on a single processor computer and:
> I have a table with the following columns
> CREATE TABLE [dbo].[SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS] (
> [JOB_NO] [int] NOT NULL ,
> [OVERRIDDEN_PERIOD_START] [datetime] NULL ,
> [OVERRIDDEN_PERIOD_END] [datetime] NULL
> ) ON [PRIMARY]
> GO
> That has the following data:
> 1,06/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
> 2,NULL,13/01/2003 08:00:00
> 2,13/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
> 3,NULL,20/01/2003 08:00:00
> 3,20/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
> 4,NULL, 27/01/2003 08:00:00
> 4,27/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
> If I now try deleting these rows from two database sessions in the order a
s
> seen below I end up with a deadlock:
> Firstly on SPID 56:
> set implicit_transactions on
> delete from SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS where job_no = 2
> Secondly on SPID 57:
> set implicit_transactions on
> delete from SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS where job_no = 1
> ... This then blocks ? Which I am not sure about.
> Thirdly back on SPID 56:
> delete from SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS where job_no = 6
> Creates a deadlock victimising SPID 57.
> I accept that this table does not have a primary key but when I add one it
> still deadlocks.
> Why, on step 2, does SPID 57 lock when I delete the row where job_no = 1?
> Why does a deadlock occur when SPID 56 subsequently deletes the row where
> job_no is 6 i.e. no rows?
> When I looked at sp_lock output it appeared that both sessions were waitin
g
> on the same RID, does this mean that a RID is not necessarily 1 database
> table row?
> Thanks|||Turn on trace flag 1204 and -1. Then your answers will be in the errorlog.
"Alejandro Mesa" <AlejandroMesa@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5E921D65-22E3-40D0-AE4C-BEBF76DF8FC7@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
>- What kind of lock triggered the deadlock? row, index, page, extent,
>table,
> database
> - Do you have an index by "job_no"?
> AMB
> "Tony Jones" wrote:
>|||The blocked SPID 57 is waiting on a RID (so a row lock) both SPIDs are
waiting on the same rid i.e. the same fileid:pageid:slot, hence the question
is the RID locking more than one row?
No I have not had a index on job_no I have tried a primary kry on a new
column defined to be the Identity column. This produced the same deadlock
behaviour.
"Alejandro Mesa" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> - What kind of lock triggered the deadlock? row, index, page, extent, tabl
e,
> database
> - Do you have an index by "job_no"?
> AMB
> "Tony Jones" wrote:
>
odd deadlocking behaviour
I am running SQL Server 2000 SP3a on a single processor computer and:
I have a table with the following columns
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS] (
[JOB_NO] [int] NOT NULL ,
[OVERRIDDEN_PERIOD_START] [datetime] NULL ,
[OVERRIDDEN_PERIOD_END] [datetime] NULL
) ON [PRIMARY]
GO
That has the following data:
1,06/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
2,NULL,13/01/2003 08:00:00
2,13/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
3,NULL,20/01/2003 08:00:00
3,20/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
4,NULL, 27/01/2003 08:00:00
4,27/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
If I now try deleting these rows from two database sessions in the order as
seen below I end up with a deadlock:
Firstly on SPID 56:
set implicit_transactions on
delete from SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS where job_no = 2
Secondly on SPID 57:
set implicit_transactions on
delete from SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS where job_no = 1
... This then blocks ? Which I am not sure about.
Thirdly back on SPID 56:
delete from SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS where job_no = 6
Creates a deadlock victimising SPID 57.
I accept that this table does not have a primary key but when I add one it
still deadlocks.
Why, on step 2, does SPID 57 lock when I delete the row where job_no = 1?
Why does a deadlock occur when SPID 56 subsequently deletes the row where
job_no is 6 i.e. no rows?
When I looked at sp_lock output it appeared that both sessions were waiting
on the same RID, does this mean that a RID is not necessarily 1 database
table row?
Thanks
- What kind of lock triggered the deadlock? row, index, page, extent, table,
database
- Do you have an index by "job_no"?
AMB
"Tony Jones" wrote:
> I am running SQL Server 2000 SP3a on a single processor computer and:
> I have a table with the following columns
> CREATE TABLE [dbo].[SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS] (
> [JOB_NO] [int] NOT NULL ,
> [OVERRIDDEN_PERIOD_START] [datetime] NULL ,
> [OVERRIDDEN_PERIOD_END] [datetime] NULL
> ) ON [PRIMARY]
> GO
> That has the following data:
> 1,06/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
> 2,NULL,13/01/2003 08:00:00
> 2,13/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
> 3,NULL,20/01/2003 08:00:00
> 3,20/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
> 4,NULL, 27/01/2003 08:00:00
> 4,27/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
> If I now try deleting these rows from two database sessions in the order as
> seen below I end up with a deadlock:
> Firstly on SPID 56:
> set implicit_transactions on
> delete from SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS where job_no = 2
> Secondly on SPID 57:
> set implicit_transactions on
> delete from SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS where job_no = 1
> ... This then blocks ? Which I am not sure about.
> Thirdly back on SPID 56:
> delete from SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS where job_no = 6
> Creates a deadlock victimising SPID 57.
> I accept that this table does not have a primary key but when I add one it
> still deadlocks.
> Why, on step 2, does SPID 57 lock when I delete the row where job_no = 1?
> Why does a deadlock occur when SPID 56 subsequently deletes the row where
> job_no is 6 i.e. no rows?
> When I looked at sp_lock output it appeared that both sessions were waiting
> on the same RID, does this mean that a RID is not necessarily 1 database
> table row?
> Thanks
|||Turn on trace flag 1204 and -1. Then your answers will be in the errorlog.
"Alejandro Mesa" <AlejandroMesa@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5E921D65-22E3-40D0-AE4C-BEBF76DF8FC7@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
>- What kind of lock triggered the deadlock? row, index, page, extent,
>table,
> database
> - Do you have an index by "job_no"?
> AMB
> "Tony Jones" wrote:
|||The blocked SPID 57 is waiting on a RID (so a row lock) both SPIDs are
waiting on the same rid i.e. the same fileid:pageid:slot, hence the question
is the RID locking more than one row?
No I have not had a index on job_no I have tried a primary kry on a new
column defined to be the Identity column. This produced the same deadlock
behaviour.
"Alejandro Mesa" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> - What kind of lock triggered the deadlock? row, index, page, extent, table,
> database
> - Do you have an index by "job_no"?
> AMB
> "Tony Jones" wrote:
I have a table with the following columns
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS] (
[JOB_NO] [int] NOT NULL ,
[OVERRIDDEN_PERIOD_START] [datetime] NULL ,
[OVERRIDDEN_PERIOD_END] [datetime] NULL
) ON [PRIMARY]
GO
That has the following data:
1,06/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
2,NULL,13/01/2003 08:00:00
2,13/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
3,NULL,20/01/2003 08:00:00
3,20/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
4,NULL, 27/01/2003 08:00:00
4,27/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
If I now try deleting these rows from two database sessions in the order as
seen below I end up with a deadlock:
Firstly on SPID 56:
set implicit_transactions on
delete from SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS where job_no = 2
Secondly on SPID 57:
set implicit_transactions on
delete from SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS where job_no = 1
... This then blocks ? Which I am not sure about.
Thirdly back on SPID 56:
delete from SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS where job_no = 6
Creates a deadlock victimising SPID 57.
I accept that this table does not have a primary key but when I add one it
still deadlocks.
Why, on step 2, does SPID 57 lock when I delete the row where job_no = 1?
Why does a deadlock occur when SPID 56 subsequently deletes the row where
job_no is 6 i.e. no rows?
When I looked at sp_lock output it appeared that both sessions were waiting
on the same RID, does this mean that a RID is not necessarily 1 database
table row?
Thanks
- What kind of lock triggered the deadlock? row, index, page, extent, table,
database
- Do you have an index by "job_no"?
AMB
"Tony Jones" wrote:
> I am running SQL Server 2000 SP3a on a single processor computer and:
> I have a table with the following columns
> CREATE TABLE [dbo].[SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS] (
> [JOB_NO] [int] NOT NULL ,
> [OVERRIDDEN_PERIOD_START] [datetime] NULL ,
> [OVERRIDDEN_PERIOD_END] [datetime] NULL
> ) ON [PRIMARY]
> GO
> That has the following data:
> 1,06/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
> 2,NULL,13/01/2003 08:00:00
> 2,13/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
> 3,NULL,20/01/2003 08:00:00
> 3,20/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
> 4,NULL, 27/01/2003 08:00:00
> 4,27/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
> If I now try deleting these rows from two database sessions in the order as
> seen below I end up with a deadlock:
> Firstly on SPID 56:
> set implicit_transactions on
> delete from SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS where job_no = 2
> Secondly on SPID 57:
> set implicit_transactions on
> delete from SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS where job_no = 1
> ... This then blocks ? Which I am not sure about.
> Thirdly back on SPID 56:
> delete from SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS where job_no = 6
> Creates a deadlock victimising SPID 57.
> I accept that this table does not have a primary key but when I add one it
> still deadlocks.
> Why, on step 2, does SPID 57 lock when I delete the row where job_no = 1?
> Why does a deadlock occur when SPID 56 subsequently deletes the row where
> job_no is 6 i.e. no rows?
> When I looked at sp_lock output it appeared that both sessions were waiting
> on the same RID, does this mean that a RID is not necessarily 1 database
> table row?
> Thanks
|||Turn on trace flag 1204 and -1. Then your answers will be in the errorlog.
"Alejandro Mesa" <AlejandroMesa@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5E921D65-22E3-40D0-AE4C-BEBF76DF8FC7@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
>- What kind of lock triggered the deadlock? row, index, page, extent,
>table,
> database
> - Do you have an index by "job_no"?
> AMB
> "Tony Jones" wrote:
|||The blocked SPID 57 is waiting on a RID (so a row lock) both SPIDs are
waiting on the same rid i.e. the same fileid:pageid:slot, hence the question
is the RID locking more than one row?
No I have not had a index on job_no I have tried a primary kry on a new
column defined to be the Identity column. This produced the same deadlock
behaviour.
"Alejandro Mesa" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> - What kind of lock triggered the deadlock? row, index, page, extent, table,
> database
> - Do you have an index by "job_no"?
> AMB
> "Tony Jones" wrote:
odd deadlocking behaviour
I am running SQL Server 2000 SP3a on a single processor computer and:
I have a table with the following columns
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS] (
[JOB_NO] [int] NOT NULL ,
[OVERRIDDEN_PERIOD_START] [datetime] NULL ,
[OVERRIDDEN_PERIOD_END] [datetime] NULL
) ON [PRIMARY]
GO
That has the following data:
1,06/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
2,NULL,13/01/2003 08:00:00
2,13/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
3,NULL,20/01/2003 08:00:00
3,20/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
4,NULL, 27/01/2003 08:00:00
4,27/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
If I now try deleting these rows from two database sessions in the order as
seen below I end up with a deadlock:
Firstly on SPID 56:
set implicit_transactions on
delete from SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS where job_no = 2
Secondly on SPID 57:
set implicit_transactions on
delete from SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS where job_no = 1
... This then blocks ? Which I am not sure about.
Thirdly back on SPID 56:
delete from SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS where job_no = 6
Creates a deadlock victimising SPID 57.
I accept that this table does not have a primary key but when I add one it
still deadlocks.
Why, on step 2, does SPID 57 lock when I delete the row where job_no = 1?
Why does a deadlock occur when SPID 56 subsequently deletes the row where
job_no is 6 i.e. no rows?
When I looked at sp_lock output it appeared that both sessions were waiting
on the same RID, does this mean that a RID is not necessarily 1 database
table row?
Thanks- What kind of lock triggered the deadlock? row, index, page, extent, table,
database
- Do you have an index by "job_no"?
AMB
"Tony Jones" wrote:
> I am running SQL Server 2000 SP3a on a single processor computer and:
> I have a table with the following columns
> CREATE TABLE [dbo].[SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS] (
> [JOB_NO] [int] NOT NULL ,
> [OVERRIDDEN_PERIOD_START] [datetime] NULL ,
> [OVERRIDDEN_PERIOD_END] [datetime] NULL
> ) ON [PRIMARY]
> GO
> That has the following data:
> 1,06/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
> 2,NULL,13/01/2003 08:00:00
> 2,13/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
> 3,NULL,20/01/2003 08:00:00
> 3,20/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
> 4,NULL, 27/01/2003 08:00:00
> 4,27/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
> If I now try deleting these rows from two database sessions in the order as
> seen below I end up with a deadlock:
> Firstly on SPID 56:
> set implicit_transactions on
> delete from SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS where job_no = 2
> Secondly on SPID 57:
> set implicit_transactions on
> delete from SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS where job_no = 1
> ... This then blocks ? Which I am not sure about.
> Thirdly back on SPID 56:
> delete from SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS where job_no = 6
> Creates a deadlock victimising SPID 57.
> I accept that this table does not have a primary key but when I add one it
> still deadlocks.
> Why, on step 2, does SPID 57 lock when I delete the row where job_no = 1?
> Why does a deadlock occur when SPID 56 subsequently deletes the row where
> job_no is 6 i.e. no rows?
> When I looked at sp_lock output it appeared that both sessions were waiting
> on the same RID, does this mean that a RID is not necessarily 1 database
> table row?
> Thanks|||Turn on trace flag 1204 and -1. Then your answers will be in the errorlog.
"Alejandro Mesa" <AlejandroMesa@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5E921D65-22E3-40D0-AE4C-BEBF76DF8FC7@.microsoft.com...
>- What kind of lock triggered the deadlock? row, index, page, extent,
>table,
> database
> - Do you have an index by "job_no"?
> AMB
> "Tony Jones" wrote:
>> I am running SQL Server 2000 SP3a on a single processor computer and:
>> I have a table with the following columns
>> CREATE TABLE [dbo].[SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS] (
>> [JOB_NO] [int] NOT NULL ,
>> [OVERRIDDEN_PERIOD_START] [datetime] NULL ,
>> [OVERRIDDEN_PERIOD_END] [datetime] NULL
>> ) ON [PRIMARY]
>> GO
>> That has the following data:
>> 1,06/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
>> 2,NULL,13/01/2003 08:00:00
>> 2,13/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
>> 3,NULL,20/01/2003 08:00:00
>> 3,20/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
>> 4,NULL, 27/01/2003 08:00:00
>> 4,27/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
>> If I now try deleting these rows from two database sessions in the order
>> as
>> seen below I end up with a deadlock:
>> Firstly on SPID 56:
>> set implicit_transactions on
>> delete from SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS where job_no = 2
>> Secondly on SPID 57:
>> set implicit_transactions on
>> delete from SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS where job_no = 1
>> ... This then blocks ? Which I am not sure about.
>> Thirdly back on SPID 56:
>> delete from SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS where job_no = 6
>> Creates a deadlock victimising SPID 57.
>> I accept that this table does not have a primary key but when I add one
>> it
>> still deadlocks.
>> Why, on step 2, does SPID 57 lock when I delete the row where job_no = 1?
>> Why does a deadlock occur when SPID 56 subsequently deletes the row where
>> job_no is 6 i.e. no rows?
>> When I looked at sp_lock output it appeared that both sessions were
>> waiting
>> on the same RID, does this mean that a RID is not necessarily 1 database
>> table row?
>> Thanks|||The blocked SPID 57 is waiting on a RID (so a row lock) both SPIDs are
waiting on the same rid i.e. the same fileid:pageid:slot, hence the question
is the RID locking more than one row?
No I have not had a index on job_no I have tried a primary kry on a new
column defined to be the Identity column. This produced the same deadlock
behaviour.
"Alejandro Mesa" wrote:
> - What kind of lock triggered the deadlock? row, index, page, extent, table,
> database
> - Do you have an index by "job_no"?
> AMB
> "Tony Jones" wrote:
> > I am running SQL Server 2000 SP3a on a single processor computer and:
> >
> > I have a table with the following columns
> > CREATE TABLE [dbo].[SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS] (
> > [JOB_NO] [int] NOT NULL ,
> > [OVERRIDDEN_PERIOD_START] [datetime] NULL ,
> > [OVERRIDDEN_PERIOD_END] [datetime] NULL
> > ) ON [PRIMARY]
> > GO
> >
> > That has the following data:
> >
> > 1,06/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
> > 2,NULL,13/01/2003 08:00:00
> > 2,13/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
> > 3,NULL,20/01/2003 08:00:00
> > 3,20/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
> > 4,NULL, 27/01/2003 08:00:00
> > 4,27/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
> >
> > If I now try deleting these rows from two database sessions in the order as
> > seen below I end up with a deadlock:
> >
> > Firstly on SPID 56:
> > set implicit_transactions on
> > delete from SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS where job_no = 2
> >
> > Secondly on SPID 57:
> > set implicit_transactions on
> > delete from SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS where job_no = 1
> > ... This then blocks ? Which I am not sure about.
> >
> > Thirdly back on SPID 56:
> > delete from SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS where job_no = 6
> >
> > Creates a deadlock victimising SPID 57.
> >
> > I accept that this table does not have a primary key but when I add one it
> > still deadlocks.
> >
> > Why, on step 2, does SPID 57 lock when I delete the row where job_no = 1?
> > Why does a deadlock occur when SPID 56 subsequently deletes the row where
> > job_no is 6 i.e. no rows?
> >
> > When I looked at sp_lock output it appeared that both sessions were waiting
> > on the same RID, does this mean that a RID is not necessarily 1 database
> > table row?
> >
> > Thanks
I have a table with the following columns
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS] (
[JOB_NO] [int] NOT NULL ,
[OVERRIDDEN_PERIOD_START] [datetime] NULL ,
[OVERRIDDEN_PERIOD_END] [datetime] NULL
) ON [PRIMARY]
GO
That has the following data:
1,06/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
2,NULL,13/01/2003 08:00:00
2,13/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
3,NULL,20/01/2003 08:00:00
3,20/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
4,NULL, 27/01/2003 08:00:00
4,27/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
If I now try deleting these rows from two database sessions in the order as
seen below I end up with a deadlock:
Firstly on SPID 56:
set implicit_transactions on
delete from SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS where job_no = 2
Secondly on SPID 57:
set implicit_transactions on
delete from SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS where job_no = 1
... This then blocks ? Which I am not sure about.
Thirdly back on SPID 56:
delete from SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS where job_no = 6
Creates a deadlock victimising SPID 57.
I accept that this table does not have a primary key but when I add one it
still deadlocks.
Why, on step 2, does SPID 57 lock when I delete the row where job_no = 1?
Why does a deadlock occur when SPID 56 subsequently deletes the row where
job_no is 6 i.e. no rows?
When I looked at sp_lock output it appeared that both sessions were waiting
on the same RID, does this mean that a RID is not necessarily 1 database
table row?
Thanks- What kind of lock triggered the deadlock? row, index, page, extent, table,
database
- Do you have an index by "job_no"?
AMB
"Tony Jones" wrote:
> I am running SQL Server 2000 SP3a on a single processor computer and:
> I have a table with the following columns
> CREATE TABLE [dbo].[SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS] (
> [JOB_NO] [int] NOT NULL ,
> [OVERRIDDEN_PERIOD_START] [datetime] NULL ,
> [OVERRIDDEN_PERIOD_END] [datetime] NULL
> ) ON [PRIMARY]
> GO
> That has the following data:
> 1,06/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
> 2,NULL,13/01/2003 08:00:00
> 2,13/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
> 3,NULL,20/01/2003 08:00:00
> 3,20/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
> 4,NULL, 27/01/2003 08:00:00
> 4,27/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
> If I now try deleting these rows from two database sessions in the order as
> seen below I end up with a deadlock:
> Firstly on SPID 56:
> set implicit_transactions on
> delete from SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS where job_no = 2
> Secondly on SPID 57:
> set implicit_transactions on
> delete from SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS where job_no = 1
> ... This then blocks ? Which I am not sure about.
> Thirdly back on SPID 56:
> delete from SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS where job_no = 6
> Creates a deadlock victimising SPID 57.
> I accept that this table does not have a primary key but when I add one it
> still deadlocks.
> Why, on step 2, does SPID 57 lock when I delete the row where job_no = 1?
> Why does a deadlock occur when SPID 56 subsequently deletes the row where
> job_no is 6 i.e. no rows?
> When I looked at sp_lock output it appeared that both sessions were waiting
> on the same RID, does this mean that a RID is not necessarily 1 database
> table row?
> Thanks|||Turn on trace flag 1204 and -1. Then your answers will be in the errorlog.
"Alejandro Mesa" <AlejandroMesa@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5E921D65-22E3-40D0-AE4C-BEBF76DF8FC7@.microsoft.com...
>- What kind of lock triggered the deadlock? row, index, page, extent,
>table,
> database
> - Do you have an index by "job_no"?
> AMB
> "Tony Jones" wrote:
>> I am running SQL Server 2000 SP3a on a single processor computer and:
>> I have a table with the following columns
>> CREATE TABLE [dbo].[SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS] (
>> [JOB_NO] [int] NOT NULL ,
>> [OVERRIDDEN_PERIOD_START] [datetime] NULL ,
>> [OVERRIDDEN_PERIOD_END] [datetime] NULL
>> ) ON [PRIMARY]
>> GO
>> That has the following data:
>> 1,06/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
>> 2,NULL,13/01/2003 08:00:00
>> 2,13/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
>> 3,NULL,20/01/2003 08:00:00
>> 3,20/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
>> 4,NULL, 27/01/2003 08:00:00
>> 4,27/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
>> If I now try deleting these rows from two database sessions in the order
>> as
>> seen below I end up with a deadlock:
>> Firstly on SPID 56:
>> set implicit_transactions on
>> delete from SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS where job_no = 2
>> Secondly on SPID 57:
>> set implicit_transactions on
>> delete from SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS where job_no = 1
>> ... This then blocks ? Which I am not sure about.
>> Thirdly back on SPID 56:
>> delete from SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS where job_no = 6
>> Creates a deadlock victimising SPID 57.
>> I accept that this table does not have a primary key but when I add one
>> it
>> still deadlocks.
>> Why, on step 2, does SPID 57 lock when I delete the row where job_no = 1?
>> Why does a deadlock occur when SPID 56 subsequently deletes the row where
>> job_no is 6 i.e. no rows?
>> When I looked at sp_lock output it appeared that both sessions were
>> waiting
>> on the same RID, does this mean that a RID is not necessarily 1 database
>> table row?
>> Thanks|||The blocked SPID 57 is waiting on a RID (so a row lock) both SPIDs are
waiting on the same rid i.e. the same fileid:pageid:slot, hence the question
is the RID locking more than one row?
No I have not had a index on job_no I have tried a primary kry on a new
column defined to be the Identity column. This produced the same deadlock
behaviour.
"Alejandro Mesa" wrote:
> - What kind of lock triggered the deadlock? row, index, page, extent, table,
> database
> - Do you have an index by "job_no"?
> AMB
> "Tony Jones" wrote:
> > I am running SQL Server 2000 SP3a on a single processor computer and:
> >
> > I have a table with the following columns
> > CREATE TABLE [dbo].[SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS] (
> > [JOB_NO] [int] NOT NULL ,
> > [OVERRIDDEN_PERIOD_START] [datetime] NULL ,
> > [OVERRIDDEN_PERIOD_END] [datetime] NULL
> > ) ON [PRIMARY]
> > GO
> >
> > That has the following data:
> >
> > 1,06/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
> > 2,NULL,13/01/2003 08:00:00
> > 2,13/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
> > 3,NULL,20/01/2003 08:00:00
> > 3,20/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
> > 4,NULL, 27/01/2003 08:00:00
> > 4,27/01/2003 17:00:00,NULL
> >
> > If I now try deleting these rows from two database sessions in the order as
> > seen below I end up with a deadlock:
> >
> > Firstly on SPID 56:
> > set implicit_transactions on
> > delete from SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS where job_no = 2
> >
> > Secondly on SPID 57:
> > set implicit_transactions on
> > delete from SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS where job_no = 1
> > ... This then blocks ? Which I am not sure about.
> >
> > Thirdly back on SPID 56:
> > delete from SP148_JOB_AHO_PERIODS where job_no = 6
> >
> > Creates a deadlock victimising SPID 57.
> >
> > I accept that this table does not have a primary key but when I add one it
> > still deadlocks.
> >
> > Why, on step 2, does SPID 57 lock when I delete the row where job_no = 1?
> > Why does a deadlock occur when SPID 56 subsequently deletes the row where
> > job_no is 6 i.e. no rows?
> >
> > When I looked at sp_lock output it appeared that both sessions were waiting
> > on the same RID, does this mean that a RID is not necessarily 1 database
> > table row?
> >
> > Thanks
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)