Pros and cons of select for update clause

hi,
Can anybody explain what are the
pros and cons of select for update clause
11.2.0.1

As commented, there are no pros versus cons in this case.
What is important is to understand conceptually what this do and why it would be use.
Conceptually, a select for update reads and locks row(s). It is known as pessimistic locking.
Why would you want to do that? Well, you have a fat client (Delphi for example) and multiple users. When userA updates an invoice, you want that invoice row(s) locked and prevent others from making updates at the same time. Without locking, multiple users updating the same invoice will result in existing updated data being overwritten by old data that also has been updated. A situation called lost updates.
For web based clients that are stateless, pessimistic locking does not work - as the clients do not have state and pessimistic locking requires state. Which means an alternative method to select for update needs to be used to prevent lost updates. This method is called optimistic locking.
So it is not about pros versus cons. It is about understanding how the feature/technique/approach works and when to use it.. and when it is not suited to use it. All problems are not nails. All solutions are not the large hammer for driving in nails.

Similar Messages

Pros and Cons of the new update

I updated one of my ATV to version 2. I would like to try and concisely start a thread which list the Pros and Cons of the latest version 2 update.
So far after updating one of the ATVs I have only 2 observations:
Pro - unit seems to run somewhat cooler - (yes one ATV is Version 1 and 1 ATV is version 2, it is obvious)
Con - No looping or shuffle on Music Videos (Good Grief!)
Thanks all, Mike
PS - Concisely is key

Pro - the library selection of renting and buying is great.
Con - no continuous playing of videos / music video playlist.
Con - no continuous playing of videos / music video playlist.
Con - no continuous playing of videos / music video playlist.
Con - no continuous playing of videos / music video playlist.
I was extremely disappointed by this. As much as people were practically "begging' for this piece of functionality on these discussion boards, I really cannot believe Apple didn't fix this. The coolness factor of Apple TV would quadruple if I can just make a playlist of the 50+ music videos I bought from ITMS. Not to mention - I collet vintage movie trailers and old commercials and randomly playing these on my TV was the entire reason I bought Apple TV in the first place. It's unbelivably annoying that I have to manually select the next video in the list every 60 seconds. All the features they added are great, but they are completely overshadowed by this annoying and seemingly unnecessary usability issue.

ADF and MSSQL 2005 problems - FOR UPDATE clause allowed only for DECLARE C

Hi all.
I have a legacy application which uses MS SQL server 2000 / 2005. I've started to build up a new version of this application using JDev + ADF stack.
Everything went ok until I've tried to update some data in a Form. I'm getting this error:
com.microsoft.sqlserver.jdbc.SQLServerException: Line 1: FOR UPDATE clause allowed only for DECLARE CURSOR
Can someone figure out what's wrong?
1) In a MSSQL server connection string, normally we define the 'SelectMethod' parameter to 'cursor', as follows: jdbc:sqlserver://$host$:$port$;databaseName=dbserver;SelectMethod=cursor
Since I was not able to do this through my project's 'Application Resources > Connections' screen, I could not evaluate if this is the cause
2) I'm trying to follow the steps of an Oracle tutorial (http://www.oracle.com/technology/obe/obe11jdev/ps1/ria_application/developriaapplication_long.htm#ad), of course using MS SQL server instead of Oracle, and using some master->detail tables like the example suggests (in the tutorial, I've reached the step 11, then tried to update a record, which causes the mentioned exception)
Follows the stacktrace:
<Utils><buildFacesMessage> ADF: Adding the following JSF error message: Line 1: FOR UPDATE clause allowed only for DECLARE CURSOR.
com.microsoft.sqlserver.jdbc.SQLServerException: Line 1: FOR UPDATE clause allowed only for DECLARE CURSOR.
     at com.microsoft.sqlserver.jdbc.SQLServerException.makeFromDatabaseError(Unknown Source)
     at com.microsoft.sqlserver.jdbc.IOBuffer.processPackets(Unknown Source)
     at com.microsoft.sqlserver.jdbc.SQLServerStatement.getNextResult(Unknown Source)
     at com.microsoft.sqlserver.jdbc.SQLServerStatement.getMoreResults(Unknown Source)
     at com.microsoft.sqlserver.jdbc.SQLServerStatement.seekToOutParams(Unknown Source)
     at com.microsoft.sqlserver.jdbc.SQLServerPreparedStatement.getPrepStmtHandle(Unknown Source)
     at com.microsoft.sqlserver.jdbc.SQLServerPreparedStatement.doPrepExec(Unknown Source)
     at com.microsoft.sqlserver.jdbc.SQLServerPreparedStatement.executeQuery(Unknown Source)
     at oracle.jbo.server.BaseSQLBuilderImpl.doEntitySelectForAltKey(BaseSQLBuilderImpl.java:707)
     at oracle.jbo.server.BaseSQLBuilderImpl.doEntitySelect(BaseSQLBuilderImpl.java:546)
     at oracle.jbo.server.EntityImpl.doSelect(EntityImpl.java:7789)
Regards,
Luciano S. Lorencini, SCJP, SCWCD

So, I`ve created a test project and use the MSSQL flavor to create my Business Components.
After repeated all the steps, the error did not happen again.
But some strange behavior happen: I change some data and click the "Submit" button. The changed data appears ok in screen, but the changes were not committed in database!
Do I need to explicitly tell ADF to commit that changes somewhere?
Greetings,
Luciano S. Lorencini, SCJP, SCWCD

Can any one give pros and cons of upgradation for Essbase 6.5 to 9.3.1

Hi,
plz let know,
major differences between these two(Essbase 6.5 and 9.3.1)
which one is stable, advantages and disadvanges, which one you suggest
Plz let me know.
Thanks,
sudhakar

Hi Sudhakar,
As we know every new version is a upgrade version of previous release.
So new version is always better, but there is some scenario when previous version could be better like 9.2.x is better and stable version than 9.3.0 (As we find)
Answer of your (What you are asking )
definitely 9.3.1 is better and stable version
so go for 9.3.1
Thanks
Dhanjit G.

For update clause

Hi all
in cursor with select for update clause we can reference column list. like
select.......
from....
for update [of column_reference]
I want to know that what is the use of specifying column nane in for update clause?
because its main purpose is to lock rows before update or delete, and complete row will be locked not only that column, then what is the use of mentioning it.
Secondly, I want to know that when we perform dml then automatically locks occur, then why we use for update clause.???
third,
when locks occur, when we open cursor or when update or delete???

If you've got FireFox, you can add tahiti.oracle.com and asktom.oracle.com to the list of search engines you have available in the upper right-hand corner. I can't tell you how addicted I am to that little piece of heaven.
Justin

Deadlock detected during SELECT FOR UPDATE - an application error?

I have a general question about how Oracle prevents deadlocks from affecting
applications: do I need to build support into the application for handling
deadlocks when they occur in this particular scenario, or should Oracle handle
this for me? I'd like to know whether this is "normal" behavior for an Oracle
application, or if there is an underlying problem. Consider the following situation:
Two sessions issue individual SELECT FOR UPDATE queries. Each query locates
records in the table using a different index. These indexes point to rows in a
different order from each other, meaning that a deadlock will occur if the two
statement execute simultaneously.
For illustrative purposes, consider these rows in a hypothetical table.
ALPHABET
alpha
bravo
charlie
delta
echo
foxtrot
golf
hotel
Index A results in traversing the table in ascending alphabetical order; index
B, descending. If two SELECT FOR UPDATE statements concurrently execute on this
table--one with an ascending order execution path and one in descending order--
the two processes will deadlock at the point where they meet. If Session A
locks alpha, bravo, charlie, and delta, while Session B locks hotel, golf,
foxtrot, and echo, then neither process can proceed. A needs to lock echo, and
B needs to lock delta, but one cannot continue until the other releases its
locks.
This execution path can be encouraged using hints. Executing queries similar to these on larger tables will generate the "collision" as described above.
-- Session A
select /*+ index_asc (customer) */
from customer
where gender = 'M'
for update;
-- Session B
select /*+ index_desc (customer) */
from customer
where gender = 'M'
for update;
Oracle will recognize that both sessions are in a stand-off, and it will roll
back the work performed by one of the two sessions to break the deadlock.
My question pivots on whether or not, in this situation, the deadlock gets
reported back to the application executing the queries as an ORA-00060. If
these are the ONLY queries executed during these sessions, I would think that
Oracle would rollback the locking performed in one of the SELECT FOR UPDATE
statements. If I understand correctly,
(1) Oracle silently rolls back and replays work performed by UPDATE statements
when a deadlock situation occurs within the scope of the update statement,
and
(2) A SELECT FOR UPDATE statement causes Oracle, at the point in time the cursor
is opened, to lock all rows matching the WHERE clause.
If this is the case, then should I expect Oracle to produce an ORA-00060
deadlock detection error for two SELECT FOR UPDATE statements?
I would think that, for deadlock situations completely within Oracle's control,
this should be perceived to the application invoking the SELECT FOR UPDATE
statements as regular blocking. Since the query execution plans are the sole
reason for this deadlock situation, I think that Oracle would handle the
situation gracefully (like it does for UPDATE, as referenced in (1)).
Notice, from the trace file below, that the waits appear to be from row locking,
and not from an artificial deadlock (e.g. ITL contention).
Oracle8i Enterprise Edition Release 8.1.7.4.0 - 64bit Production
With the Partitioning option
DEADLOCK DETECTED
Current SQL statement for this session:
SELECT XXX FROM YYY WHERE ZZZ LIKE 'AAA%' FOR UPDATE
----- PL/SQL Call Stack -----
object line object
handle number name
58a1f8f18 4 anonymous block
58a1f8f18 11 anonymous block
The following deadlock is not an ORACLE error. It is a
deadlock due to user error in the design of an application
or from issuing incorrect ad-hoc SQL. The following
information may aid in determining the deadlock:
Deadlock graph:
---------Blocker(s)-------- ---------Waiter(s)---------
Resource Name process session holds waits process session holds waits
TX-002f004b-000412cf 37 26 X 26 44 X
TX-002e0044-000638b7 26 44 X 37 26 X
session 26: DID 0001-0025-00000002 session 44: DID 0001-001A-00000002
session 44: DID 0001-001A-00000002 session 26: DID 0001-0025-00000002
Rows waited on:
Session 44: obj - rowid = 0000CE31 - AAANCFAApAAAAGBAAX
Session 26: obj - rowid = 0000CE33 - AAANCHAArAAAAOmAAM
Thanks for your insight,
- Curtis
(1) "Oracle will silently roll back your update and restart it"
http://tkyte.blogspot.com/2005/08/something-different-part-i-of-iii.html
(2) "All rows are locked when you open the cursor, not as they are fetched."
http://download-east.oracle.com/docs/cd/A87860_01/doc/appdev.817/a77069/05_ora.htm#2170
Message was edited by:
Curtis Light

Thanks for your response. In my example, I used the indexes to force a pair of query execution plans to "collide" somewhere in the table in question by having one query traverse the table via index in an ascending order, and another in descending. This is an artificial scenario for reproducible illustrative purposes, but similar collisions could legitimately occur in real world scenarios (e.g. a full table scan and an index range scan with lookup by ROWID).
So, with that said, I think it would be unreasonable for Oracle to report the collision as a ORA-00060 every time it occurs because:
(1) The UPDATE statement handles this situation automatically, and
(2) An ORA-00060 results in a 100+KB trace file being written out, only rational for truly erroneous situations.
I agree that, when the application misbehaves and locks rows out of order in separate SQL statements, then Oracle should raise an ORA-00060, as the deadlock is outside of its control. But in this case, the problem occurs with just two individual SQL statements, each within its own transaction.

When does select for update release locks

Hello all,
Does anyone know when Oracle realeases the row locks when a
select for update is issued?
Does Oracle realase the row lock at the time when an actual update statement is
issued for the locked row, or does it wait until a commit statment is executed?
So for example, can I lock several rows with a select for update clause, and then
issue update statements as many times as I want on each locked row without
having to worry about the lock being released until I issue a commit statement.
Thanks,
David

yes.
The lock is released only when your transaction ends. A transaction can end because of:
1). Commit.
2). Rollback.
3). client disconnects.
etc. etc...

Should i use SELECT for update NOWAIT ?

Hi:
Do I need to use, in my pl/sql triggers and procedures, the SELECT FOR UPDATE NOWAIT sentence, to avoid locks before using update table sentences ? Is it common to use it on stored procedures and triggers?
Thanks
Joao Oliveira

First, what, exactly do you mean by "avoid locks"? I was interpreting that to mean "I want to avoid creating locks in my session that might block someone else", not "I want to avoid having my SELECT wait for locks to be released-- I want it to fail immediately". If you meant the latter, then SELECT ... FOR UPDATE NOWAIT would be what you want. If you meant the former, then pessimistic locking is not what you want.
Second, what sort of Oracle Forms architecture do you have? Are you still using old-school client-server applications? Or are you using a three-tiered approach? As Tom discusses in that thread, pessimistic locking is only an option when your client application is able to maintain database state across calls (i.e. client/server systems) not when you have stateless connections (which is the norm in the three-tier model). The old client-server versions of Forms would automatically and transparently do pessimistic locking. Since you didn't mention anything about your architecture, most of us probably assumed the more common stateless client architecture (note how Tom's answers progress over the 5 years in that thread as client/server architecture became less and less common).
Third, while your question is appropriate for either the Database - General forum or the SQL and PL/SQL forum, that generally means that you are free to post it either forum, not that it should be posted in both. The vast majority of the folks that hang out in one forum hang out in the other. It's also rather frustrating to answer a post in one forum only to discover that there is another post in a different forum where someone else had already covered the same points half an hour earlier or to discover that there was additional information in another thread that might have changed your answer.
Fourth, if you are going to do pessimistic locking, that requires that you are able to maintain state across various database calls, that you are locking on the lowest possible level of granularity, and that you are able to time out sessions relatively aggressively to ensure that someone doesn't open a record, thereby locking it, go to lunch (or have their system die) and then block everyone else from working. Assuming that is the case, and that you have some reasonable way to handle the error that gets generated other than simply retrying the operation, adding NOWAIT is certainly an option. Most applications, particularly those getting written today, cannot guarantee all these things, so pessimistic locking is generally not appropriate there.
Looking at your other thread (where there is new information that would be useful in this discussion, one of the reasons that multiple threads are generally a bad idea), it seems that you have an ERP application and you are concerned about the performance of entering orders. Obviously, there shouldn't be any locking issues on the ORDER or ORDER_DETAILS tables, assuming that multiple users aren't going to be inserting the same order at the same time. The contention would almost certainly come when multiple orders are trying to update the STOCK and INVENTORY tables, since multiple orders presumably rely on the same rows in those tables. In that case, I'm not sure what adding a NOWAIT would buy you-- unless you were going to roll back the entire order because someone is updating the STOCK row for #2 pencils and your order has an item of #2 pencils, you'd have to keep retrying the operation until you were able to modify the STOCK row, which would be less efficient than just letting that update block until the row was free.
Now, you could certainly redesign the application to minimize that contention by not trying to update what I assume are aggregate tables like STOCK and INVENTORY directly as part of your OLTP processing or, at least, by minimizing the time that you're locking a row. You could, for example, make STOCK and INVENTORY materialized views rather than tables that refresh ON COMMIT, which should decrease the time that your locks are held. You could also have those tables refreshed asynchronously, which would be even more efficient but may require that you reasses your holdback requirements.
Justin

SELECT FOR UPDATE - does it write to REDO?

Greetings folks,
we have some strange performance issues with a recent application update. This is custom in-house application. Every morning since the deploy we get a spike in load, especially to log sync / redo archive. We capture activity surrounding the load, and found many "select for update" statements.
Im digging through metalink and docs looking to confirm "write or no write" to the redo log files. comments appreciated.

sb92075 wrote:
SELECT does not generate REDO
DML generates REDO.It is possible for a SELECT to generate redo due to the effects of delayed block cleanout. A small test case:
Session 1:
CREATE TABLE T10 AS
SELECT
ROWNUM RN
FROM
DUAL
CONNECT BY
LEVEL<=1000;
UPDATE
T10
SET
RN=RN;
UPDATE
T10
SET
RN=RN;
UPDATE
T10
SET
RN=RN;
Session 2:
ALTER SYSTEM FLUSH BUFFER_CACHE;
ALTER SYSTEM FLUSH BUFFER_CACHE;
Session 1:
COMMIT;
Session 2:
SET AUTOTRACE ON STATISTICS
SELECT
FROM
T10;
1000 rows selected.
Statistics
          0 recursive calls
          0 db block gets
         73 consistent gets
          3 physical reads
        188 redo size
      11104 bytes sent via SQL*Net to client
       1060 bytes received via SQL*Net from client
         68 SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client
          0 sorts (memory)
          0 sorts (disk)
       1000 rows processedNote that the above may be performed in a single session rather than using two sessions. Essentially, the flush of the buffer cache causes the dirty blocks (containing uncommitted changes) to be written to disk, and the blocks are "cleaned up" during the next SELECT which accesses the blocks.
A much better explanation:
http://jonathanlewis.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/clean-it-up/
Charles Hooper
IT Manager/Oracle DBA
K&M Machine-Fabricating, Inc.

Pros and cons in setting AD domain trust into my AD domain for more than 10+ AD domain and some with same FQDN or label ?

Hi,
Can someone please share what is the pros and Cons of trusting AD domain for more than 10 different AD sites into my existing single domain forest let say ParentCompany.com ?
At the moment I only have one single forest AD domain with the Domain and Forest functionality Windows Server 2003. The main domain controller FSMO role holder is in the Data Center spread across three different VMs running on Windows Server 2008 R2.
The main/parent company has acquired smaller business chain of 15+ offices in which they have their own Domain Controller and also their own domain, sometimes they also got the same AD domain between them (no trust or whatsoever in those 15+ AD domain).
Sounds crazy but yes, there is no standardization in them or whoever manage their IT infrastructure previously.
I'm now considering what are the benefits of creating the AD domain and trust versus importing those AD objects into my domain and then decommission them.
No need to worry about Exchange Server since all of the user in those sites connecting to the RDS to my ParentCompany.com terminal servers.
My requirements or goal are as follows:
1. Simplify the AD domain structure & maintenance
2. Try to avoid the disruptions of the user in terms of downtime and selecting multiple different domain everytime they login to their PC or SharePoint sites.
any kind of help and suggestion would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks.
/* Server Support Specialist */

Can someone please share what is the pros and Cons of trusting AD domain for more than 10 different
AD sites into my existing single domain forest let say ParentCompany.com ?
I think you mean 10 AD domains.
Managing multiple domains can be difficult for administration. I usually recommend using a single domain in a single forest with OUs to separate resources whenever it is possible.
However, if you can't do that then you can simply create trust relationships between your domains. The advantage is that you can enable access to resources to different domains. I do not see cons here.
The main/parent company has acquired smaller business chain of 15+ offices in which they have
their own Domain Controller and also their own domain, sometimes they also got the same AD domain between them (no trust or whatsoever in those 15+ AD domain). Sounds crazy but yes, there is no standardization in them or whoever manage their IT infrastructure
previously.
I'm now considering what are the benefits of creating the AD domain and trust versus importing those
AD objects into my domain and then decommission them.
I would recommend consolidating your domains into a single one. ADMT is a migration tool that you can use. The advantage would be the ease of administration. Also, by having multiple DCs for the same domain across sites, you will take benefit of High Availability
of your and DRP.
This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties or guarantees , and confers no rights.
Ahmed MALEK
My Website Link
My Linkedin Profile
My MVP Profile

Pros and Cons for single sales organization and multiple sales organization

Hi!
Does anybody have a good data of Pros and Cons for Single Sales Organization vs. Multiple Sales Organization.
Thank you!

Hi,
Actuall it all depends on the business process.
I will explain the answer to you through a practical example
like Ford, it has sales and services all across globe.
It is not advisable to manage all of its activities under only one sales organization, say Ford Inc.
So what it does is de-centralises the whole process according to the country, region so that the whole process is divided and hence can be managed more effeciently.
Hope this helps you in understanding the basics.
One sales org always provides you with very less data to update and maintain, while many sales org makes the scenario more complex.
One sales org always gives you the flexibility to bring any changes to the current scenario, while in multiple sales org to bring a change its a tiresome job.
These are some of the advantages and disadvantages of one to many sales org.
regards,
Siddharth.

Pros and cons of updating firmware 1.01.03 to 1.11.01 on Zen Micro

I have a Zen Micro 5.0 gb unit with original firmware of .0.03. It works fine with no problems except for the 24 hour standby time. I use Red Chair Notmad software to add or delete mp3's and drag and drop worksreally well for me. If I update the firmware to ..0 I can eliminate the24 hour standby time and cut it down to the 4 hour time. If I do this will I run into any of the problems that I read about in this forum when people update to the latest firmware of 2.2.02, or will I stillhave a steady, reliable firmware with the .0.0 with the addition of the 4 hour standby? Also can I still use the red Chair Notmad software(the latest version) and it still work like my current firmware?Please give me your pros and cons about this. Thanks a lot,?Jim

There are no real cons. ..0 is very stable.
I use Notmad with it and it works great. However, now that Creative has made an MTP driver for pre-Windows XP machines, the 2.x series firmware looks like a decent alternati've, though I haven't tried it.Message Edited by Lyle_JP on 03-23-2006:56 AM

Difference in select for update of - in Oracle Database 10g and 11g

Hi, I found out that Oracle Database 10g and 11g treat the following PL/SQL block differently (I am using scott schema for convenience):
DECLARE
  v_ename bonus.ename%TYPE;
BEGIN
  SELECT b.ename
    INTO v_ename
    FROM bonus b
    JOIN emp e ON b.ename = e.ename
    JOIN dept d ON d.deptno = e.deptno
   WHERE b.ename = 'Scott'
     FOR UPDATE OF b.ename;
END;
/While in 10g (10.2) this code ends successfully (well NO_DATA_FOUND exception is raised but that is expected), in 11g (11.2) it raises exception "column ambiguously defined". And that is definitely not expected. It seems like it does not take into account table alias because I found out that when I change the column in FOR UPDATE OF e.empno (also does not work) to e.mgr (which is unique) it starts working. So is this some error in 11g? Any thoughts?
Edited by: Libor Nenadál on 29.4.2010 21:46
It seems that my question was answered here - http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2736426/difference-in-select-for-update-of-in-oracle-database-10g-and-11g

The behaviour seems like it really is a bug and can be avoided using non-ANSI syntax. (It makes me wonder why Oracle maintains two query languages while dumb me thinks that this is just a preprocessor matter and query engine could be the same).

HT204053 What are the pros and cons of 1) choosing to use the SAME Apple ID for iCloud services on one side, and purchases on the iTunes Store, App Store, and iBookstore, on the other side; or 2) to have and use two separate Apple Ids for these "two sides

All is in the title, so I repeat it below with a better identation.
What are the pros and cons of
1) choosing to use the SAME
Apple ID for iCloud services on one side, and
purchases on the iTunes Store, App Store, and iBookstore, on the other side; or
2) to have and use two separate Apple Ids for these "two sides"?
P.S.
I have loads and loads of free podcasts in iTunes in my iMac, that are certainly more thant the 5 gigas the iCloud provides for free, so I don't want those to go to the cloud. But this is perhaps a different question...
Also need to mention that I have itunes on a mac, a pc and an iphone.
Sorry to look so silly with this question, but I don't get the "big picture".

You need to create a user account for your wife (or yourself depending on who has the current user account). When syncing, each of you should sign in as a separate user, login to iTunes and then sync. I had this problem when my sister got an iPhone. When we did her initial sync, everything on my iPhone showed up on hers. Apple gave me this solution.

What are the pros and cons of installing java+abap stack for portal?

Hi all,
1.What are the pros and cons of installing java+abap stack for portal?
2.what effect it does on the ume options to be choosen??
3.for the purpose of integration of r3,bw and crm on portal and crm 4.0 60.2.3 business package which option of stack(java or abap or both)will be good option and which ume option while installation should be choosen?
regards
Rajendra

Hi Rajendra,
The NetWeaver Installation Master Guide offers some good scenarios on the pros and cons:
https://websmp201.sapag.de/~sapidb/011000358700005412792005E.pdf
In a nutshell:
ABAP+JAVA
Pros
- Decrease # of servers required to administer the portal
- Less costly
Cons
- Upgrades could be dependent on ABAP and Java release level
- Additional load on the server due to ABAP stack
- Limited scalability
JAVA and ABAP on separate server
Pros
- Improved performance
- Allows each system to be single-use purpose therefore downtime does not affect other components
- More scalable
Cons
- Adds complexity to landscape
- Additional costs
Regards,
Thomas Pham

Pros and cons of select for update clause

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for