What does Oracle mean by "statement level atomicity"?
Let's cite a couple of chapters from the Concepts:
Statement-Level Read Consistency
Oracle 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 nor 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.
Statement-Level Rollback
If at any time during execution a SQL statement causes an error, all effects of the statement are rolled back. The effect of the rollback is as if that statement had never been run. This operation is a statement-level rollback.
A SQL statement that fails causes the loss only of any work it would have performed itself. It does not cause the loss of any work that preceded it in the current transaction.
It means that any single SQL statement you run is atomic in nature - it will either succeed completely or fail completely. If your SQL statement fails, and triggers that would have run as a result of that SQL statement will fail as well.
This is a statement about the nature of transactions: a Unit Of Work either succeeds or completes in its entirety. If your transaction comprises two inserts plus an update, and the update statement fails, the database will rollback all three statements. Any recursive SQL or other SQL such as that included in triggers is included in the atomic scope of the transaction. Find out more.
Atomicity means the A in the ACID principles of transaction management.
Related
I don't use Stored procedures very often and was wondering if it made sense to wrap my select queries in a transaction.
My procedure has three simple select queries, two of which use the returned value of the first.
In a highly concurrent application it could (theoretically) happen that data you've read in the first select is modified before the other selects are executed.
If that is a situation that could occur in your application you should use a transaction to wrap your selects. Make sure you pick the correct isolation level though, not all transaction types guarantee consistent reads.
Update :
You may also find this article on concurrent update/insert solutions (aka upsert) interesting. It puts several common methods of upsert to the test to see what method actually guarantees data is not modified between a select and the next statement. The results are, well, shocking I'd say.
Transactions are usually used when you have CREATE, UPDATE or DELETE statements and you want to have the atomic behavior, that is, Either commit everything or commit nothing.
However, you could use a transaction for READ select statements to:
Make sure nobody else could update the table of interest while the bunch of your select query is executing.
Have a look at this msdn post.
Most databases run every single query in a transaction even if not specified it is implicitly wrapped. This includes select statements.
PostgreSQL actually treats every SQL statement as being executed within a transaction. If you do not issue a BEGIN command, then each individual statement has an implicit BEGIN and (if successful) COMMIT wrapped around it. A group of statements surrounded by BEGIN and COMMIT is sometimes called a transaction block.
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/tutorial-transactions.html
In PostgreSQL, if you encounter an error in transaction (for example when your insert statement violates unique constraint), the whole transaction is aborted, you cannot commit it and no rows are inserted:
database=# begin;
BEGIN
database=# insert into table (id, something) values ('1','whatever');
INSERT 0 1
database=# insert into table (id, something) values ('1','whatever');
ERROR: duplicate key value violates unique constraint "table_id_key"
Key (id)=(1) already exists.
database=# insert into table (id, something) values ('2','whatever');
ERROR: current transaction is aborted, commands ignored until end of transaction block
database=# rollback;
database=# select * from table;
id | something |
-----+------------+
(0 rows)
You can change that by setting ON_ERROR_ROLLBACK to "on" or "interactive", after that you can do multiple inserts ignoring errors, commit and have only successfully inserted rows in table after transaction end.
database=# \set ON_ERROR_ROLLBACK interactive
In Oracle, this is the default transaction management behaviour, which surprises me. Isn't this completely counterintuitive and dangerous?
When I start a transaction I want to be sure that all the statements were successfull. What if my multiple inserts comprise some kind of an object or data structure? I end up completely unaware of the data state in my database and should be checking it after the commit.
If one of the inserts fails I want to be sure that other inserts will be rollbacked or not even evaluated after the first error, which is exactly how it's done in PostgreSQL.
Why does Oracle have such way of transaction management as a default, and why is it considered good practice?
For example, some random guy here in comments
This is a very neat feature.
I don't understand this, though: "Normally, any error you make will
throw an exception and cause your current transaction to be marked as
aborted. This is sane and expected behavior..."
No, it's really not. Oracle doesn't work this way, nor does MySQL. I
have no experience with MSSQL or DB2 but I'll bet a dollar each they
don't work this way either. There no intuitive reason why a syntax
error, or any other error for that matter, should abort a transaction.
I can only assume there's either some limitation deep in the Postgres
guts that requires this behavior, or that it conforms to some obscure
part of the SQL standard that everyone else sensibly ignores. There's
certainly no API / UX reason why it should work this way.
We really shouldn't be too proud of any workarounds we've developed
for this pathological behavior. It's like IT Stockholm Syndrome.
Does not it violate even the definition of the transaction?
Transactions provide an "all-or-nothing" proposition, stating that
each work-unit performed in a database must either complete in its
entirety or have no effect whatsoever.
I agree with you. I think it's a mistake not to abort the whole tx. But people are used to that, so they think it's reasonable and correct. Like people who use MySQL think that the DBMS should accept 0000-00-00 as a date, or people using Oracle expect that '' IS NULL.
The idea that there's a clear distinction between a syntax error and something else is flawed.
If I write
BEGIN;
CREATE TABLE new_customers (...);
INSET INTO new_customers (...)
SELECT ... FROM customers;
DROP TABLE customers;
COMMIT;
I don't care that it's a typo resulting in a syntax error that caused me to lose my data. I care that the transaction didn't successfully execute all its statements but still committed.
It'd be technically feasible to allow soft rollback in PostgreSQL before any rows are actually written by a statement - probably before we even enter the executor. So failures in the parse and parameter binding phases could allow the tx not to be aborted. We have a statement memory context we could use to clean up.
However, once the statement starts changing rows, it's doing so on disk with the same transaction ID as the prior statements in the tx. So you can't roll it back without rolling back the whole tx. To allow statement rollback Pg needs to assign a new subtransaction ID. That costs resources. You can do it explicitly with SAVEPOINTs when you want to, and internally that's what psql is doing. In theory we could allow the server to do this implicitly for each statement to implement statement rollback, just at a performance cost. But I doubt any patch implementing this would get committed, at least not without a LOT of argument, because most of the PostgreSQL team are (IMO reasonably) not fond of "whoops, that broke but we'll continue anyway" transaction semantics.
I'm new to Oracle so I'm still learning the basics. Can someone explain to me what a transaction is? When I look it up it always seems to contain an update statement but is this a necessary feature? How is it declared? How is it any different to anonymous block?
Any help in explaining this would be much appreciated!
A transaction is a logical unit of work that contains one or more SQL statements. A transaction is an atomic unit. The effects of all the SQL statements in a transaction can be either all committed (applied to the database) or all rolled back (undone from the database).
A transaction begins with the first executable SQL statement. A transaction ends when it is committed or rolled back, either explicitly with a COMMIT or ROLLBACK statement or implicitly when a DDL statement is issued.
Suppose I have a set of ID . For each ID , I will insert many records to many different tables based on the ID .Between inserting difference tables, different business checks will be called . If any checking fail , all the records that are inserted based on this ID will be ROLLBACK .This bulk insert action is done through using PL/SQL . Do the time of the COMMIT and ROLLBACK affect the performance and how does it affect ? For example , should I COMMIT after finish the process for one ID or COMMIT after finish all ID?
This is not so much of a performance decision but a process design decision. Do you want the other IDs to stay in the database when you have to roll back a faulty ID?
For obvious reasons, rollback takes longer when more rows must be rolled back. Rollback usually takes longer (sometimes much longer!) than the operations that have to be rolled back. Commit is always fast in Oracle, so it probably doesn't matter how often you commit in that regard.
Your problem description indicates you have a large set of smaller logical transactions (each new ID is a transaction). You should commit each logical transaction. The two reasons to wait to commit the entire set of transactions are:
If the entire set of transactions is in fact a transaction itself - all inserts must succeed for any rows to be committed. In that context, your smaller "transactions" aren't truly transactions.
You don't have a restart capability in your bulk load process, which in effect makes this a special case of item 1. If your bulk load process aborts, you need a way to skip successfully applied ID's.
Tom Kyte's advice is to commit each logical unit of work - the transaction.
Don't take the transaction time longer. make it short as possible as you can. Because according to your query some locks have been created. This locks may cause perfomance issues... so do it ID by ID...
There are two "forces" at work....
locking
during your open transaction, oracle puts locks on the changed rows.
whenever another transaction needs to update any of the locked rows,
it has to wait.
in the worst case, you can even build a deadlock.
synchronous write
every commit performs a synchronous write.
(there are ways to disable that, but it is usually the thing everybody wants: integrity).
that synchronous write can take (much) longer then the a regular write (that can be buffered).
Not to forget that there is usually an additional network round trip involved with an commit.
so, the one force says "commit as soon as possible (considering your integrity requirements)" the other says "commit as as less often as possible".
There are some other issues to consider as well, e.g. the maximum transaction size. every uncommited transaction needs some temporary space. the bigger the transaction gets, the more you need. You can also run into ORA-01555 "snapshot too old".
If there is any advice to give, then it is to implement a configurable "commit frequency" so that you can easily change it as needed.
One option if you need to control the individual sets but retain the ability to commit or rollback the entire transaction is to use savepoints. You can set a savepoint at the beginning of the outermost loop, then rollback to it if an error occurs. You might end up with something like this:
begin
--Initial batch logging
for r_record in cur_cursor loop
savepoint s_cursor loop;
begin
--Process rows
exception
when others then
rollback to s_cursor;
end;
end loop;
--Final batch logging
exception
when others then
rollback;
raise;
end;
is it possible to have only DDL statements with a transaction? and if so, is it possible to get it rollback to the original state, if any one of the DDL statement fails?
Thanks & Regards,
priya.R
in Oracle a DDL statement implicitely commits before and after the statement. Each statement is an independant transaction and you won't be able to rollback a successful statement.
A DDL statement however is always atomic: it either succeeds entirely or fails entirely.