[hibernate-dev] Feature for handling getNextValue work in same transaction.
jwhiting at redhat.com
Thu Sep 5 07:31:33 EDT 2013
Since my last response I have gone back to the drawing board to
re-evaluate and test the proposed change. In brief the change does
inline the sql in the current transaction and uses pessimistic locking.
This is a change to the initial ideas suggested. Reasons for that are
later in the response.
On 12/08/13 02:51, Steve Ebersole wrote:
> First, you lump sequences and table-based sequence together here, but I
> assure you sequences (real database sequences) are read inline with the
> current transaction. In the case of a real sequence, the database
> already handles the isolation of the generated values outside
> transactional context. When you ask the database sequence for its next
> value, that value is incremented regardless of the outcome of the
> That is to say, your example "sequence of calls" is indicative of table
> based generation, not at all true of sequence based generation. For the
> table based generation case, I am leery of doing this for a few
> reasons. First, as Sanne points out, our "sequence table" strategy is
> purely meant to mimic a database sequence in terms of semantic in cases
> where a sequence cannot be used.
Yes table based generation.
> Secondly, you request this (I believe) as a performance enhancement as a
> means to work around your particular use-case which I think we can all
> agree is *at best* a questionable real-life scenario. The problem with
> the performance aspect is that you are trading one type of performance
> concern (resource allocation) for another (blocking). That is to say,
> currently you have a performance problem because accessing the database
> value causes multiple discrete transactions. But what you suggest
> instead is to trade off the isolation with blocking *in the same
> frequency*. To illustrate, lets take a (simplified) look at 2
> transactions attempting to generate an identifier from the same
> "sequence table":
> T1 - begin
> T2 - begin
> T1 - select val from seq_table for update
> T2 - select val from seq_table for update
> T1 - update seq_table set val = ? where val = ?
> T2 - update seq_table set val = ? where val = ?
> T1 - insert into my_entity ...
> T2 - insert into my_entity ...
> T1 - commit
> T2 - commit
> We can notice a few different things here. In the *best* case scenario,
> T1 simply blocks T2 meaning that T1 and T2 are no longer concurrent. T1
> must completely finish before T2 will be allowed to proceed; T2 will
> block either on the `select for update` or on the `update`,
> depending... Yes, using separate transactions for reading the "sequence
> table" value still does blocking, the difference is one of scope and
> therefore duration.
Yes I agree exactly this is what will happen. The tradeoff relies on
the blocking of concurrent threads till T1 terminates.
Testing of the application I am using has shown an improvement in
response times. 5 graphs are shown. Scale excluded. The blue orange and
yellow (1st three) bars show results using an isolated transaction and
the green, brown and light blue (last three) show the inlined sql. See
the attached pdf to the HHH-8429
It shows the response time is improved most of the time or is equal.
Shorter bars is better btw.
> Seems to me, if I were you, I'd be more interested in minimizing the
> number of times the database is called regardless of what happens when
> the database is called...
I think by inlining the sql the system reduces the number of calls by
three. To fetch the next block of ids. 3 being to manage the isolated
The proposed idea for using optimistic locking was proved in testing
to be too buggy. Scott's question in the jira demonstrates the issue. In
my testing concurrent transactions did end up competing.
> On 08/11/2013 06:45 AM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
>> On 9 August 2013 19:08, Jeremy Whiting <jwhiting at redhat.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Scott,
>>> To the database the sequence of statements will be as follows. The
>>> statements around the read and write of sequence table are an example to
>>> put the sequence_table work into context.
>>> tx1 BEGIN
>>> SELECT blah
>>> SELECT blah
>>> UPDATE blah
>>> SELECT * from sequence_table;
>>> UPDATE sequence_table SET ids=?;
>>> INSERT INTO blah
>>> UPDATE blah
>>> tx1 END
>>> tx1 COMMIT
>>> The work will not be isolated from the current transaction tx1.
>>> Concurrently running transactions will see the changes to sequence_table
>>> depending on the isolation level set when the pool is filled.
>> What is the use case for creating the sequence in the same transaction?
>> Sequences are usually needed to be absolutely independent from transactions.
>> That is generally the case for "real" sequence constructs:
>> - http://docs.oracle.com/cd/B28359_01/server.111/b28286/statements_6015.htm
>> With sequence tables we're providing alternative strategies but -as a
>> user- I would expect these to follow the same semantic, i.e. to be
>> fully independent from any running transaction.
>>> On 09/08/13 18:20, Scott Marlow wrote:
>>>> On 08/08/2013 11:21 AM, Jeremy Whiting wrote:
>>>>> I am looking for feedback on changes to provide the ability for work
>>>>> to be completed in a currently running transaction. For example when a
>>>>> TableGenerator or SequenceGenerator is being used for generating unique
>>>>> ids. The statements that select then update the db are executed in a
>>>>> separate transaction.
>>>>> There is a jira for this feature.
>>>>> Attached to the jira is a diagram. See this link
>>>>> This diagram shows what I currently have implemented. It shows the
>>>>> existing classes and the new classes shaded in light blue. The methods
>>>>> on a new class IsolationAware show how I've re-jigged most the
>>>>> implementation from JtaTransaction to it's new ancestor IsolationAware.
>>>>> A new concrete implementation of IsolationDelegate will negotiate the
>>>>> work to be executed in the same running transaction.
>>>>> The structure splits up the factory/transaction/delegate classes into
>>>>> two groups. "same transaction" and "separate transaction". This has only
>>>>> been done for JtaTransaction and the same will probably be necessary for
>>>>> CMTTransaction as it also uses a separate transaction to complete work.
>>>>> That has been left out to keep the diagram simple.
>>>> Your talking about making code changes here but I'm not following
>>>> exactly how this new features works. I added my questions about this
>>>> to the jira. When you respond there or here, could you please also
>>>> include how this new feature depends on isolation level (if it
>>>> requires a certain isolation level).
>>>>> The option of using aggregation at the point where implementers of
>>>>> TransactionImplementor are instantiated has been considered. Before too
>>>>> much effort is expended coding I wondered what others thought is the
>>>>> preferred way to implement this feature.
>>>>> hibernate-dev mailing list
>>>>> hibernate-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>> hibernate-dev mailing list
>>> hibernate-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> hibernate-dev mailing list
>> hibernate-dev at lists.jboss.org
> hibernate-dev mailing list
> hibernate-dev at lists.jboss.org
More information about the hibernate-dev