Read Cursor isolation level

Using Berkeley DB version 4.5.
DB environment is opened with following flags:
DB_CREATE, DB_RECOVER, DB_INIT_LOCK, DB_INIT_LOG, DB_INIT_TXN, DB_INIT_MPOOL, DB_PRIVATE and DB_THREAD.
My requirement: I need to use the cursor to iterate over all objects in a database which is only for ready only operation. However, it should allow other threads to update the same database in a transaction (w/ less wait time due to lock held by the read cursor) .
From the API referennce, Cursor isolation level can be controlled by setting the flag in DB->cursor() .
I can't use DB_READ_UNCOMMITTED as it returns dirty data. It looks like DB_TXN_SNAPSHOT is the perfect for cursor read as it doesn't take the read lock so other threads can continue with the write operation but then according to the manual this will affect peformance of write operation (as it has to update multiple version of the object in cache).
So, it looks like my next option is to use DB_READ_COMMITTED flag but I am not sure it affect with or without transactionId passed to DB->cursor().
Can you please suggest the appropriate flag to set in DB->cursor() for read-cursor (which satisfies my requirement) and what is the affect of passing txnId (and if txnId is not passed) ?
when Cursor is iterated at what point read lock is acquired and released?
Thanks in advance for your help,
Raj

Hi Raj,
So, it looks like my next option is to use DB_READ_COMMITTED flag but I am not sure it affect with or without transactionId passed to DB->cursor().
Can you please suggest the appropriate flag to set in DB->cursor() for read-cursor (which satisfies my requirement) and what is the affect of passing txnId (and if txnId is not passed) ?
when Cursor is iterated at what point read lock is acquired and released?Degree 2 isolation, committed reads, means that the cursor will only read data that is committed (never dirty data, non-committed data); data will never change so long as it is addressed by the cursor, but the data may change before the reading cursor is closed. The read lock on a page is acquired when the cursor needs to move onto that page to read from it a record; the read lock is released as soon as the cursor moves away from that page.
The cursor has the same behavior whether a transaction id (txnId) is specified or not.
Please review the following documentation sections for more information:
- Isolation and Committed Reads in Getting Started with Berkeley DB Transaction Processing
- Degrees of isolation in Berkeley DB Programmer's Reference Guide
Regards,
Andrei

Similar Messages

  • Read committed isolation level must not produce nonrepeatable read

    Hi,
    I am sql server DBA. But i am trying to improve myself in oracle too.
    I read isolation levels in oracle. And it says, In read committed isolation level , oracle guarantees the result set that contains committed records at the beginning of reading operation.
    İf it is guaranteed , how does nonrepeatable read can occur? It must not occur then.
    I think , I misunderstood something .
    can you explain me?
    Thanks

    >
    I read isolation levels in oracle. And it says, In read committed isolation level , oracle guarantees the result set that contains committed records at the beginning of reading operation.
    İf it is guaranteed , how does nonrepeatable read can occur? It must not occur then.
    >
    See the 'Multiversion Concurrency Control' section in the database concepts doc. It discusses this and has a simple diagram (can't post it) that shows it.
    http://docs.oracle.com/cd/B28359_01/server.111/b28318/consist.htm
    >
    As a query enters the execution stage, the current system change number (SCN) is determined. In Figure 13-1, this system change number is 10023. As data blocks are read on behalf of the query, only blocks written with the observed SCN are used. Blocks with changed data (more recent SCNs) are reconstructed from data in the rollback segments, and the reconstructed data is returned for the query. Therefore, each query returns all committed data with respect to the SCN recorded at the time that query execution began. Changes of other transactions that occur during a query's execution are not observed, guaranteeing that consistent data is returned for each query.
    Statement-Level Read Consistency
    Oracle Database always enforces statement-level read consistency. This guarantees that all the data returned by a single query comes from a single point in time—the time that the query began. Therefore, a query never sees dirty data or any of the changes made by transactions that commit during query execution. As query execution proceeds, only data committed before the query began is visible to the query. The query does not see changes committed after statement execution begins.
    >
    The first sentence is the key:
    >
    As a query enters the execution stage, the current system change number (SCN) is determined.
    >
    Oracle will only query data AS OF that SCN that was determined.
    If you now rerun the query Oracle repeats the process: it determines the SCN again which could be newer if other users have committed changes.
    That second execution of the query may find that some rows have been modified or even deleted and that new rows have been inserted: nonrepeatable read.
    If you use the SERIALIZABLE isolation level then that second query will use the SCN that was determined at the very START of the transaction. For the simple example above it means the second query would use the SAME SCN that the first query used: so the same data would be returned.
    Table 13-2 in that doc (a few pages down) lists the isolation levels
    >
    Read committed
    This is the default transaction isolation level. Each query executed by a transaction sees only data that was committed before the query (not the transaction) began. An Oracle Database query never reads dirty (uncommitted) data.
    Because Oracle Database does not prevent other transactions from modifying the data read by a query, that data can be changed by other transactions between two executions of the query. Thus, a transaction that runs a given query twice can experience both nonrepeatable read and phantoms.

  • Isolation level in cftransaction

    Hi all,
    We have been using cftransaction on our transaction process page where we need to do multiple insert queries to save transaction data.  If there is no error, we commit the transaction.  Once in a while though, we get the error message "Transaction was deadlocked on lock resources with another process and has been chosen as the deadlock victim. Rerun the transaction."  We are on SQL Server 2005.
    What I understand from that error message is that there are multiple transactions trying to access the same tables at the same time.  Implicitly, one transaction has locked the tables while it is inserting data, and other transactions are not able to access them.
    Now I don't fully understand cftransaction beyond its commit / rollback functionality.  I never quite understood the isolationLevel attribute of cftransaction.  I have read a number of descriptions, but the terms dirty read, phantom data, nonrepeatable reads are still confusing to me.  What I do understand is that unless we specify isolationLevel = serializable in a transaction, it is not locking the tables it is accessing.  In our use of cftransaction, we don't specify the isolationLevel attribute ( I believe the default is read committed .)
    So here are my questions:
    1.  If we don't specify any isolation level, why are we getting deadlock transactions?
    2.  If we do want to lock the tables using isolationLevel = serializable, does a concurrent transaction trying to use the same tables automatically get deadlocked?  Or is there a mechanism to specify timeout ala cflock timeout attribute?
    I'd appreciate someone clearing up my understanding of cftransaction.  Thanks!

    I know this is an old post, but I have had the same questions recently and based on my recent findings, have attempted to answer your questions below for anyone in the future:
    1.  If we don't specify any isolation level, why are we getting deadlock transactions?
    The reason this could be happening is because the cftransaction tag will use the default isolation level of your database. For SQL Server this is usually Read Committed. However, it is important to note that, "Choosing a transaction isolation level does not affect the locks acquired to protect data modifications. A transaction always gets an exclusive lock on any data it modifies, and holds that lock until the transaction completes, regardless of the isolation level set for that transaction. For read operations, transaction isolation levels primarily define the level of protection from the effects of modifications made by other transactions." This quote is taken directly from the MS SQL Server site. I understand this by stating that if you are doing a read, the isolation level determines the quality and/or quantity of the data returned from the read. If you are doing data modifications, the transaction will always get an exclusive lock on any data being modified. The cftransaction tag can control when it is committed based on its placement, but does not control the data modification isolation levels.
    2.  If we do want to lock the tables using isolationLevel = serializable, does a concurrent transaction trying to use the same tables automatically get deadlocked?  Or is there a mechanism to specify timeout ala cflock timeout attribute?
    The first question helps to answer this second one. The isolation level attribute (serializable or other) applies to the level of protection read operations will receive from other transactions' modifications. It does not effect on the locks aquired to protect data modifications. This is controlled by the database itself. The cflock tag only applies to CF meaning it ensures single thread access to that code (e.g. application, session or server variables), not to the database.
    I hope this helps someone in the future and that I have not misstated anything. If anyone can provide better clarification please do so.

  • Isolation Level vs. Locking

    Hello,
    I am still wrestlling a bit with the issues involved in setting an isolation
    level. I am using WL 5.1, Oracle, and CMP.
    I do now understand the issues involved between Oracle's
    SERIALIZABLE and READ-COMMITTED isolation levels, etc.
    But I also note that weblogic uses a pessimistic locking
    approach for serializing access to entity ejb's. Doesn't this
    locking supercede anything but an isolation level of
    SERIALIZABLE? What happens with an isolation level
    of READ-COMMITTED, even though the access to an
    entity within any transaction will be serialized anyway?
    Are there issues related to persistence issues outside of
    ejb's, such as using JMS persistent messages within the
    same system (same connection pool, etc.).
    Also, I note that the ejb 2.0 spec in weblogic will allow
    a more optimistic locking model. In this case, how will
    multiple commits behave, will they behave according
    to the isolation level chosen (READ-COMMITTED
    or SERIALIZABLE?).
    It's all confusing. What is the point, in ejb 1.1, for allowing
    the bean developer to specify an isolation level, if all
    access to entities will be done with exclusive locks?
    What happens with multiple result finder methods? Does
    this place exclusive locks on each entity found, within
    a transaction?
    Should I spend more time worrying about locking
    models or isolation levels.
    Am I just going around in circles?
    Jason
    Jason Rosenberg
    SquareTrade
    (remove 'nospam' from my return address)

    Well, for now, I am designing for Oracle. What do you mean
    by hazy?
    Kirk Wylie <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    Probably not something you can count on guaranteeing no blocking. The
    database could very well block here, particularly if your'e using
    anything other than Oracle on the back-end, and Oracle can be a bit,
    ahem, hazy in its acceptance of its own semantics here.
    Kirk Wylie
    Jason Rosenberg wrote:
    Well, if the database table is set up to use READ-COMMITTED,
    then it shouldn't block on the database, correct?
    Jason
    Cameron Purdy <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    ... which means it could block on the database, correct?
    Cameron Purdy
    "Rob Woollen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    A finder will never block on a container lock. For instance, imagine
    that primary keys 3 and 4 are currently participating in a transaction
    and are locked in server A. If a finder is called in server A which
    returns these keys, the finder will run independently of the EJB server
    locks. (Of course the database isolation will still apply.)
    -- Rob
    Jason Rosenberg wrote:
    Ah, clustering saves the day!
    I'm wondering though, since we don't have control over which
    server in a cluster a given ejb may run on at any given time,
    the concurrent behavior may be different to control. Some
    times you can have concurrent access based on
    READ-COMMITTED on the db level, and some times weblogic
    will force a SERIALIZABLE behavior if 2 conflicting
    ejb's get instantiated in the same container.
    This is what I want. I would like complex finder methods
    to be able to return a collection of primary keys over a
    table, based on a READ-COMMITTED basis. This
    needs to happen often, and shouldn't block (it's ok
    if it misses out on uncommitted data in process, or
    if it returns keys that may be in the process of being
    deleted). But I don't ever want it to block because
    another component has uncomitted changes in process.
    Ideas? Wait for ejb2.0?
    Jason
    Rob Woollen <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    It matters if you are in a cluster, or if othercomponents/applications
    are accessing the same data.
    It will also matter if your db does not have row-level locking.
    -- Rob
    Jason Rosenberg wrote:
    I've excerpted below some of the text from the weblogic
    documentation.
    What this says to me is that, indeed, if an ejb entity is in anywayinvolved
    in a transaction, all other transactions will be blocked frominstantiating
    and using the bean instance until the transaction is over.
    This is a de-facto SERIALIZABLE isolation level, is it not, with allthe
    plusses and minuses. The plus is that data integrity is maintained,the
    minus is that concurrent access is negatively effected.
    What am I missing. Given this mechanism, what difference does it
    make whether I use of a transaction isolation level ofREAD-COMMITTED
    or SERIALIZABLE?
    It looks like the story does change for ejb2.0.....
    From the weblogic online documentation at:
    http://www.weblogic.com/docs51/classdocs/API_ejb/EJB_environment.html#108796
    7
    Locking Model for Entity EJBs
    The EJB 1.1 container in WebLogic Server Version 5.1 uses apessimistic locking mechanism for entity EJB instances. As clients
    enlist an EJB or EJB method in a transaction, WebLogic Server placesan exclusive lock on the EJB instance or method for the
    duration of the transaction. Other clients requesting the same EJBor method block until the current transaction completes.
    This method of locking provides reliable access to EJB data, andavoids unnecessary calls to ejbLoad() to refresh the EJB
    instance's
    persistent fields. However, in certain circumstances pessimistic
    locking may not provide the best model for concurrent access to
    the
    EJB's data. Once a client has locked an EJB instance, other clients
    are blocked from the EJB's data even if they intend only to
    read
    the persistent fields.
    To improve concurrent access for entity EJB's, the WebLogic Server
    EJB 2.0 container enables you to defer locking services to
    the
    underlying database. In most cases, the underlying data store can
    provide finer granularity for locking EJB data, and improve
    throughput for concurrent access to the bean's data. See EJB 2.0 forBEA WebLogic Server Overview for more information.
    Cameron Purdy <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    I believe the "locking" refers to an internal WL implementationthat
    prevents multiple threads from accessing an EJB instance.
    Cameron Purdy, LiveWater
    "Jason Rosenberg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    Hello,
    I am still wrestlling a bit with the issues involved in setting
    an
    isolation
    level. I am using WL 5.1, Oracle, and CMP.
    I do now understand the issues involved between Oracle's
    SERIALIZABLE and READ-COMMITTED isolation levels, etc.
    But I also note that weblogic uses a pessimistic locking
    approach for serializing access to entity ejb's. Doesn't this
    locking supercede anything but an isolation level of
    SERIALIZABLE? What happens with an isolation level
    of READ-COMMITTED, even though the access to an
    entity within any transaction will be serialized anyway?
    Are there issues related to persistence issues outside of
    ejb's, such as using JMS persistent messages within the
    same system (same connection pool, etc.).
    Also, I note that the ejb 2.0 spec in weblogic will allow
    a more optimistic locking model. In this case, how will
    multiple commits behave, will they behave according
    to the isolation level chosen (READ-COMMITTED
    or SERIALIZABLE?).
    It's all confusing. What is the point, in ejb 1.1, for allowing
    the bean developer to specify an isolation level, if all
    access to entities will be done with exclusive locks?
    What happens with multiple result finder methods? Does
    this place exclusive locks on each entity found, within
    a transaction?
    Should I spend more time worrying about locking
    models or isolation levels.
    Am I just going around in circles?
    Jason
    Jason Rosenberg
    SquareTrade
    (remove 'nospam' from my return address)
    Kirk Wylie | mailto:[email protected] | http://www.radik.com

  • Transaction Isolation Level to Read UnCommited in Non OLTP Database

    HI,
    We are having a database which for NOT OLTP process. That is OLAP DB. Operation on that DB is only Select and (Incremental Insert - FOR DWH ) not Update/Delete and we are performing ROLAP operations in that DB.
    By Default SQL Server DB isolation Level is READ COMMITTED.AS Our DB IS OLAP SQL Server DB we need to change the isolation level toRead Uncommited. We google it down but We can achive in
    Transaction level only by SET isoaltion Level TO Read UNCOMMITED
    or ALLOW_SNAPSHOT_ISOLATION ON or READ_COMMITTED_SNAPSHOT
    Is there any other way if we can Change the Database isolation level to READ uncommitedfor Entire Database?, insteads of achiving in Transaction Level or With out enabling SET ALLOW_SNAPSHOT_ISOLATION ON or READ_COMMITTED_SNAPSHOT
    Please use Marked as Answer if my post solved your problem and use Vote As Helpful if a post was useful.
    Please use Marked as Answer if my post solved your problem and use Vote As Helpful if a post was useful.

    Hi,
    My first question would be why do you want to change Isolation level to read uncommitted, are you aware about the repercussions you will get dirty data, a wrong data.
    Isolation level is basically associated with the connection so is define in connection.
    >> Transaction level only by SET isoaltion Level TO Read UNCOMMITED or ALLOW_SNAPSHOT_ISOLATION ON or READ_COMMITTED_SNAPSHOT
    Be cautious Read UNCOMMITED  and Snapshot isolation level are not same.The former is pessimistic Isolation level and later is Optimistic.Snapshot isolation levels are totally different from read uncommitted as snapshot Isolation level
    uses row versioning.I guess you wont require snapshot isolation level in O:AP DB.
    Please read below blog about setting Isolation level Server wide
    http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ialonso/archive/2012/11/26/how-to-set-the-default-transaction-isolation-level-server-wide.aspx
    Please mark this reply as the answer or vote as helpful, as appropriate, to make it useful for other readers
    My TechNet Wiki Articles

  • Setting the Isolation Level to Read Uncommitted

    Hello All,
    We are using BO XI r3 and SQL Server 2008. I would like to change the isolation level of the connection to read uncommitted. There are 2 options that i could by Googling..
    1. Making changes in the SBO file... this didnt work
    2. Making changes in the connectinit... even this didnt work
    i am not sure if there is anything else to done...  but i tried quering a table with a lock, the report got stuck so i am guessing that the settings didnt work

    Hi
    this is the only method for changing the transaction isolation level.
    Locate the path to your odbc.sbo file
    Click the connection in UDT and when server responds Click the Details button
    scroll down to the sbo line
    That is the file location of your sbo file (this will be the same on client and server)
    This change needs to be done, for client and servers both
    The isolation can only be set for the global connection.  Not per universe.
    Locate the file and make a backup before making any changes
    Find the Tag
    <DataBase Active="Yes" Name="MS SQL Server 2008">
    Below that tag should be a "Force SQLExecute" Parameter
    Like This
    <Parameter Name="Force SQLExecute">Procedures</Parameter>
    ADD this line
    <Parameter Name="Transaction Isolation Level">READ_UNCOMMITTED</Parameter>
    Save the odbc.sbo
    After client and server are changed
    Restart SIA
    Run the webi document again.
    Locations of the sbo file:
    R2: <Installation Directory>:\Program Files\Business Objects\BusinessObjects Enterprise 11.5\win32_x86\dataAccess\connectionServer\rdbms
    R3: <Installation Directory>:\Program Files\Business Objects\BusinessObjects Enterprise 12.0\win32_x86\dataAccess\connectionServer\rdbms
    BI4: <Installation Directory>:\Program Files (x86)\SAP BusinessObjects\SAP BusinessObjects Enterprise XI 4.0\dataAccess\connectionServer\rdbms
    To make these changes effect, you have to restart ‘CMS server’, ‘the Connection Servers’, ‘Webi Report Server’ from ‘Central Configuration Manager’ (CCM).
    Information is available in the Data Access guide
    Jacqueline

  • Is isolation level setting(Dirtry Read Options) working fine for DB2?

    Hello Gurus,
    We are building obiee reports on DB2 OLTP database. As per my understanding if we select the Isolation level as "Dirty Read" it should not lock the tables but. In our case it is locking the tables and causing others(application Users) not to update the data. Please let us know if you have faced the same issue or any solution. Our production migration is stopped because of this issue.
    Thanks,
    Anil

              Just a follow up, I think the isolation level is perhaps being set to REPEATABLE_READ,
              since that is what seems to be happening. The value from the first read is maintained
              through subsequent reads in the same transaction.
              lance
              "Lance" <[email protected]> wrote:
              >
              >I have a Message Driven Bean (MDB) that is container managed, and its
              >transaction
              >isolation is set to TRANSACTION_READ_COMMITTED in weblogic-ejb-jar.xml
              >and that
              >seems to work fine. If I look at an entity bean in onMessage which is
              >updated/commited
              >outside the transaction I can see the updates no problem.
              >
              >Now the problem is this.. inside the onMessage method, the MDB creates
              >a new
              >instance of a class. This class starts up its own UserTransaction (using
              >(UserTransaction)new
              >InitialContext().lookup("javax.transaction.UserTransaction")) and goes
              >into a
              >loop working away. Inside the loop it is inspecting a value on an entity
              >bean.
              > The classs never sees any updates to this bean which are made outside
              >this new
              >UserTransaction.
              >
              >It looks to me that the UserTransaction that the class is getting has
              >a different
              >isolation level (serialized?). Is there a way to set the isolation level
              >for
              >a UserTransaction?
              >
              >Any help would be great!
              >
              >lance
              

  • ( if snapshot isolation level is enable in db.) Is the version chain is generated if any read commited transation is executed or it only gnerates version chain, if any snapshot transaction is in running status.

    hi,
    I have enable snapshot isolation level, in my database all queries execute in read commited isolation only one big transaction uses snapshot isolation.
    q1)i wanted to know if snapshot silation transaction is not running but database is enable for snapshot ,then will the normal 
    queries using read commited will create versions or not.
    yours sincerley.

    Enabling snapshot isolation level on DB level does not change behavior of queries in any other isolation levels. In that option you are eliminating all blocking even between writers (assuming they do not update
    the same rows) although it could lead to 3960 errors (data has been modified by other sessions). 
    Best Regards,Uri Dimant SQL Server MVP,
    http://sqlblog.com/blogs/uri_dimant/
    MS SQL optimization: MS SQL Development and Optimization
    MS SQL Consulting:
    Large scale of database and data cleansing
    Remote DBA Services:
    Improves MS SQL Database Performance
    SQL Server Integration Services:
    Business Intelligence

  • Isolation level: repeatable read vs read stability.

    I was going through the following link [http://www.developer.com/print.php/3706251] about database isolation levels. There was a statement:
    In Read Stability, only rows that are retrieved or modified are locked, whereas in Repeatable Read, all rows that are being referenced are locked.
    What is meant by "all rows that are being referenced".
    According to my understanding in case of repeatable read, the table is locked. Is this understanding correct?
    Edited by: user476453 on Oct 29, 2010 2:03 AM

    This article is referencing DB2 isolation levels and not Oracle ones: isolation levels are standardized in SQL but practically they can be very different from one database to another. For Oracle please refer to http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E11882_01/server.112/e16508/consist.htm#CNCPT621.
    Your DB2 question should be posted on DB2 forum and not on an Oracle forum.

  • Isolation level "read uncommitted"

    Hi,
    How to configure the isolation level of an environment to read uncommitted?
    Thanks
    Andy

    Andy,
    There is no per-Environment setting for the isolation level. This has to be specified for each Transaction (using TransactionConfig), Cusor (with CursorConfig) or method (with LockMode).
    --mark                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

  • SP2013 Bug Report: Health Reports - You can only specify the READPAST lock in the READ COMMITTED or REPEATABLE READ isolation levels.

    There appears to be an error when trying to view Health Reports from Central Administration. A simple fix within a SharePoint Stored Procedure fixes the problem. I get the error message "You can only specify the READPAST lock in the READ COMMITTED or
    REPEATABLE READ isolation levels." when just trying to click "View Health Reports" --> Go in CA.
    I have found the same problem in some blog posts which leads me to believe this is a bug:
    Problems Viewing Health Reports in SharePoint 2013
    From the blog post "I managed to work around it by altering the
    proc_GetSlowestPages stored procedure and commenting out the
    WITH (READPAST) line. "
    This also worked for me. It would be great if a fix could be released for this problem as it seems to cause other problems as well (site analytics freezes).

    Hi Dennis
    Hope you had found the hotfix and installed it.
    For the benefit of others who visit this thread SharePoint Server 2013 Client Components SDK hotfix package addresses this issue.http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2849962
    Regards
    Sriram.V

  • Comparison and implications of Informix vs Oracle isolation levels and read consisten

    We are migrating from Informix 7x to Oracle 9i. Does anyone have information regarding differences in Isolation Levels and read consistency methodologies of the 2 products and how this might influence application coding changes.
    Thanks!
    Dick

    I would not touch Hibernate with a 10ft barge pole.
    The best in Oracle, is standard pessimistic locking, using the default transaction isolation level.
    However, this requires stateful client-server.
    Web-based client-server is stateless. Which means optimistic locking is the only viable alternative. 3 choices with optimistic locking. Check each every row column for a row update/change. Add a version column to the row and compare before and after version numbers when updating. Checksum the row before and after and confirm the checksums are the same.
    You need a keyboard, a bit of a brain, and some basic code to implement one of these as an optimistic locking interface for stateless client-server. Not Hibernate.

  • You can only specify the READPAST lock in the READ COMMITTED or REPEATABLE READ isolation levels

    Hi, I have a piece of code that works fine in SSMS as T-SQL. When I put the T-Sql inside a SP, I get the error :
    You can only specify the READPAST lock in the READ COMMITTED or REPEATABLE READ isolation levels
    The script starts is as follows (only select)
    SET NOCOUNT ON
    Set Transaction Isolation Level Read Committed
    Set Deadlock_Priority Low
    Select......
    From MyTable WITH (NOLOCK)
    GROUP BY .....
    Order BY ....
    works fine as I said in SSMS as T-SQL but the SP generates the following
    Msg 650, Level 16, State 1, Procedure usp_TotalMessages, Line 15
    You can only specify the READPAST lock in the READ COMMITTED or REPEATABLE READ isolation levels.
    By the way, when it says line 15, from where we should start counting, is it from The USE DB statement which includes comments as well as Set ANSI....or should we start counting from the Alter PRocedure statement
    Thanks in advance

    Set Transaction Isolation Level Read Committed
    Set Deadlock_Priority Low
    Select......
    From MyTable WITH (NOLOCK)
    GROUP BY .....
    Order BY ....
    First you define transactionlevel = "Read Committed", then you use a query hint "NOLOCK" which is equivalent to "Read Uncommitted"; so what do you want now, committed or uncommitted, you have to decide.
    Olaf Helper
    [ Blog] [ Xing] [ MVP]

  • Ssis transction isolation levels : Dirty read

    Step 1 : I set the Isolation level property as ReadCommitted at the
    Data Flow Task (Please check the below image 1). Still I can read data in SQL server.
    Step 2 :  I set the Isolation level property as ReadCommitted at the Package level (Please check the below image 2). Still I can read data in SQL server.
    Please help me. How to set it up and lock the Dirty read.
    Maheswaran Jayaraman

    Thanks lot for your reply.
    I'm processing the data in Database 'A'. after the process is done, I'm transferring around 300,000 records from Database 'A' to database 'B'. when transferring the data, end user should not read the partial data. How to do it.
    I tried Chaos & ReadUnCommitted. still it's not working. Please help
    Maheswaran Jayaraman
    Don't play with the isolation levels in this case.
    You just need to encapsulate the operation into a Sequence Container so if something fails you rollback the whole thing as a unit of work.
    Arthur
    MyBlog
    Twitter

  • C How to Set Isolation Level in the Connection String

    How to Set Isolation Level in the Connection String using the "Microsoft OLE DB Provider for DB2 Version 4.0"?
    We are trying to move from Crystal Reporting that run against a IBM DB2 database on a mainfram to SSRS reporting and we have downloaded the "Microsoft OLE DB Provider for DB2 Version 4.0" and then worked with the DB2 Administrator to create the
    Packages.  We only have access to use the "Read Uncommitted ("MSUR001") package.   We were able to connect and pull data before he removed access to the other packages, but after setting access the Connection keeps trying to use
    the 'Cursor Stability (MSCS001)" package.   How do we change the Default to the "Read Uncommitted ("MSUR001") package???   Since it is keeps defaulting to the the other package
    we can't connect to do it in the T-SQL query, it has to be set at the Connection String level.

    Hi Dannyboy1263,
    According to your description, you want to set the Transaction Isolation Level in Connection String. Right?
    In Reporting Services, the Connection String for OLE DB Connection can only contains Provider, Data Source and Initial Catalog. There's no property for setting Transaction Isolation Level in the Connection String. Based on my knowledge, we can
    only set the Transaction Isolation Level at Query level or set it by using code (C#, VB, Java...) to call the property of Connection. So unfortunately your requirement can't be achieved currently.
    Reference:
    OLE DB Connection Type (SSRS)
    Data Connections, Data Sources, and Connection Strings in Reporting Services
    If you have any question, please feel free to ask.
    Best Regards,
    Simon Hou

Maybe you are looking for

  • ITunes will not open or uninstall!!!!

    whenever I try to open iTunes there's an error that says "'Document' is not a valid short name" or something, and then tells me that a fatal error occurred during installation. I tried to uninstall and reinstall iTunes, but when I try to uninstall, i

  • Stub generator problem

    hi, I can't generate my stub classes from this wsdl file : <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <definitions     name="YYYY"     targetNamespace="http://www.XXXX.com/YYYY.wsdl"     xmlns="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/"     xmlns:soap="http://sch

  • Slow performance from externally attached drive to server

    We have a new 2TB external drive connected via USB to our server running 10.5.5. For some odd reason, some users are getting the beachball of death when connecting to certain folders on this volume. I'm able to connect via my machine running 10.5.x,

  • Currency Decimal issues in BI Explorer

    Hi, We have a reporting issue for key figures in multiple currencies when using BI Explorer. We have currencies defined in the system which are in the following 3 models: - Having 2 decimal places (UAE, QATAR...) - Having 3 decimal places (OMAN, BAHR

  • Interaction Between Blackboard Academic Suite & .DOC Files

    Hey all. My college uses the BlackBoard Academic Suite to post messages, homeworks, and other miscellaneous items. Usually, files posted are in the Windows Microsoft Office format of ".doc". However, when Safari downloads those files, it seemingly ad