How to protect a running column within Oracle/PostgreSQL (kind of MAX-result locking or something) - oracle

Question

I'd need advice on following situation with Oracle/PostgreSQL:
I have a db table with a "running counter" and would like to protect it in the following situation with two concurrent transactions:
T1 T2
SELECT MAX(C) FROM TABLE WHERE CODE='xx'
-- C for new : result + 1
SELECT MAX(C) FROM TABLE WHERE CODE='xx';
-- C for new : result + 1
INSERT INTO TABLE...
INSERT INTO TABLE...
So, in both cases, the column value for INSERT is calculated from the old result added by one.
From this, some running counter handled by the db would be fine. But that wouldn't work because
the counter values or existing rows are sometimes changed
sometimes I'd like there to be multiple counter "value groups" (as with the CODE mentioned) : with different values for CODE the counters would be independent.
With some other databases this can be handled with SERIALIZABLE isolation state but at least with Oracle&Postgre the phantom reads are prevented but as the result the table ends up with two distinct rows with same counter value. This seems to have to do with the predicate locking, locking "all the possible rows covered by the query" - some other db:s end up to lock the whole table or something..
SELECT ... FOR UPDATE -statements seem to be for other purposes and don't even seem to work with MAX() -function.
Setting an UNIQUE contraint on the column would probably be the solution but are there some other ways to prevent the situation?
b.r. Touko
EDIT: One more option could probably be manual locking even though it doesn't appear nice to me..

Answer 1

Both Oracle and PostgreSQL support what's called sequences and the perfect fit for your problem. You can have a regular int column, but define one sequence per group, and do a single query like
--PostgreSQL
insert into table (id, ... ) values (nextval(sequence_name_for_group_xx), ... )
--Oracle
insert into table (id, ... ) values (sequence_name_for_group_xx.nextval, ... )
Increments in sequences are atomic, so your problem just wouldn't exist. It's only a matter of creating the required sequences, one per group.

Answer 2

the counter values or existing rows are sometimes changed
You should to put a unique constraint on that column if this would be a problem for your app. Doing so would guarantee a transaction at SERIALIZABLE isolation level would abort if it tried to use the same id as another transaction.
One more option could probably be manual locking even though it doesn't appear nice to me..
Manual locking in this case is pretty easy: just take a SHARE UPDATE EXCLUSIVE or stronger lock on the table before selecting the maximum. This will kill concurrent performance, though.
sometimes I'd like there to be multiple counter "value groups" (as with the CODE mentioned) : with different values for CODE the counters would be independent.
This leads me to the Right Solution for this problem: sequences. Set up several sequences, one for each "value group" you want to get IDs in their own range. See Section 9.15 of The Manual for the details of sequences and how to use them; it looks like they're a perfect fit for you. Sequences will never give the same value twice, but might skip values: if a transaction gets the value '2' from a sequence and aborts, the next transaction will get the value '3' rather than '2'.

Answer 3

The sequence answer is common, but might not be right. The viability of this solution depends on what you actually need. If what you semantically want is "some guaranteed to be unique number" then that is what a sequence is for. However, if what you want is to make sure that your value increases by exactly one on each insert (as you have asked), then DO NOT USE A SEQUENCE! I have run into this trap before myself. Sequences are not guaranteed to be sequential! They can skip numbers. Depending on what sort of optimizations you have configured, they can skip LOTS of numbers. Even if you have things configured just right so that you shouldn't skip any numbers, that is not guaranteed, and is not what sequences are for. So, you are only asking for trouble if you (mis)use them like that.
One step better solution is to bundle the select into the insert, like so:
INSERT INTO table(code, c, ...)
VALUES ('XX', (SELECT MAX(c) + 1 AS c FROM table WHERE code = 'XX'), ...);
(I haven't test run that query, but I'm pretty sure it should work. My apologies if it doesn't.) But, doing something like that reflects the semantic intent of what you are trying to do. However, this is inefficient, because you have to do a scan for MAX, and the inference I am taking from your sample is that you have a small number of code values relative to the size of the table, so you are going to do an expensive, full table scan on every insert. That isn't good. Also, this doesn't even get you the ACID guarantee you are looking for. The select is not transactionally tied to the insert. You can't "lock" the result of the MAX() function. So, you could still have two transactions running this query and they both do the sub-select and get the same max, both add one, and then both try to insert. It's a much smaller window, but you may still technically have a race condition here.
Ultimately, I would challenge that you probably have the wrong data model if you are trying to increment on insert. You should insert with a unique key, most commonly a sequence value (at least as an easy, surrogate key for any natural key). That gets the data safely inserted. Then, if you need a count of things, then have one table that stores your counts.
CREATE TABLE code_counts (
code VARCHAR(2), --or whatever
count NUMBER
);
If you really want to store the code count of each item as it is inserted, the separate count table also allows you to do so correctly, transactionally, like so:
UPDATE code_counts SET count = count + 1 WHERE code = 'XX' RETURNING count INTO :count;
INSERT INTO table(code, c, ...) VALUES ('XX', :count, ...);
COMMIT;
The key is that the update locks the counter table and reserves that value for you. Then your insert uses that value. And all of that is committed as one transactional change. You have to do this in a transaction. Having a separate count table avoids the full table scan of doing SELECT MAX().... In essense, what this does is re-implements a sequence, but it also guarantees you sequencial, ordered use.
Without knowing your whole problem domain and data model, it is hard to say, but abstracting your counts out to a separate table like this where you don't have to do a select max to get the right value is probably a good idea. Assuming, of course, that a count is what you really care about. If you are just doing logging or something where you want to make sure things are unique, then use a sequence, and a timestamp to sort by.
Note that I'm saying not to sort by a sequence either. Basically, never trust a sequence to be anything other than unique. Because when you get to caching sequence values on a multi-node system, your application might even consume them out of order.

Answer 4

This is why you should use the Serial datatype, which defers the lookup of C to the time of insert (which uses table locks i presume). You would then not specify C, but it would be generated automatically. If you need C for some intermediate calculation, you would need to save first, then read C and finally update with the derived values.
Edit: Sorry, I didn't read your whole question. What about solving your other problems with normalization? Just create a second table for each specific type (for each x where A='x'), where you have another auto increment. Manually edited sequences could be another column in the same table, which uses the generated sequence as a base (i.e if pk = 34 you can have another column mypk='34Changed').

Answer 5

You can create sequential collumn by using sequence as default value:
First, you have to create the sequence counter:
CREATE SEQUENCE SEQ_TABLE_1 START WITH 1 INCREMENT BY 1;
So, you can use it as default value:
CREATE TABLE T (
COD NUMERIC(10) DEFAULT NEXTVAL('SEQ_TABLE_1') NOT NULL,
collumn1...
collumn2...
);
Now you don't need to worry about sequence on inserting rows:
INSERT INTO T (collumn1, collumn2) VALUES (value1, value2);
Regards.